Stephen Pollard: When the police suggest being Jewish is a provocation
There is an old adage: when you’re in a hole, stop digging. It’s a notion that the beleaguered Metropolitan Police might observe. Under fire over almost everything it does – or rather doesn’t (such as catching criminals and tackling open Jew hate on the streets of London) – the Met have somehow managed to make the latest bad situation worse, this time over the arrest of a Jewish solicitor who was monitoring an anti-Israel demonstration in August.Nicole Lampert: Louis Theroux’s whitewashing of Bob Vylan is disgraceful
Video emerged over the weekend of the suspect being questioned at Hammersmith police station, where he had been taken after his arrest. The lawyer claimed that he had been taken away – handcuffed and then detained by police for nearly ten hours – because he had been wearing a Magen David necklace and that this was considered provocative, given that he was in the vicinity of an anti-Zionist protest.
The Met responded with a lengthy statement to the effect that this wasn’t at all why he was arrested: “[T]he claim this man was arrested for wearing a star of David necklace is not true. He was arrested for allegedly repeatedly breaching Public Order Act conditions that were in place to keep opposing protest groups apart…The man told officers he was acting as an independent legal observer but his actions are alleged to have breached the conditions in place, and to have gone beyond observing in an independent and neutral way to provoking and, as such, actively participating as a protester.”
But the Met’s statement is an object lesson not so much in missing the point as in demonstrating just how far gone the police now are, and how problematic – to put it mildly – the attitudes raised by their questioning of the arrested man are. To be blunt, it is entirely irrelevant why he was arrested. Maybe be breached the conditions, maybe he didn’t. We don’t know. The issue is not why he was arrested but the questioning he faced when he was being interviewed. And what we do know, with stone cold certainty, because we can all see the footage, is how that questioning by the police played out. And it is chilling.
In a podcast interview with the Bob Vylan rapper Pascal Robinson-Foster – who became infamous for his anti-Semitic rant at Glastonbury about his Jewish former record boss followed by his cry of “death to the IDF” – Theroux ends up exposing his own mad ideas, such as the view that Jewish Zionists created a “prototype” of ethno-nationalism which is now being rolled out in other countries such as Hungary and America.
Ignored in their chat, which showed how far some Left-wingers have gone down the anti-Semitic conspiracist rabbit hole, were inconvenient facts about how now over 20 per cent of Israelis aren’t Jewish, and the long history of white supremacist movements which predate Zionism.
One could also comment on how Jews, who are never seen as white by the far Right, were the primary victims of the Nazi ideas of white supremacy. Apparently, mentioning that is “post Holocaust Jewish exceptionalism”. Or something.
The much-loved broadcaster made his comments after Robinson-Foster said that Zionism is “white supremacy” and then repeated the idea that American police officers had been taught how to use racist tactics against “black and brown communities” by the IDF. This much-debunked claim became popular after the murder of George Floyd. All anti-Semitic conspiracies posit that the ills of the world are ultimately down to the Jews, and this is no different.
Theroux not only failed to challenge this but agreed in sentiment: responding to the claptrap dressed in the language of academic anti-Zionism. “There’s an even more macro lens which you can put on it which is that Jewish identity in the Jewish community, as expressed in Israel, has become almost like an acceptable quote, unquote, way of understanding ethno-nationalism,” says Theroux, who earlier this year made a BBC documentary about extremist settlers in Israel which was accused of being biased at the time.
“And so it’s like they’re prototyping an aggressive form of ethno-nationalism, which is then rolled out, whether it’s by people like Viktor Orban in Hungary or Trump in the US.” He added: “It’s become sort of this certain sense of post-Holocaust Jewish exceptionalism or Zionist exceptionalism, has become a role model on the national stage for what these white identitarians would like to do in their own countries.”
Robinson-Foster agrees: “Yes, big time, that’s the point I was making. It needs to be viewed [with] a wider lens, a much wider lens.”
Jake Wallis Simons: Keir Starmer owes Suella Braverman an apology
Now that the Prime Minister has endorsed the idea that “from the river to the sea” is antisemitic, however, Sir Sadiq has surely been outranked. And given the thousands upon thousands who intone the slogan every week, this should be something of a big deal.
The vast majority of those radicals who continue to march against Israel despite the ceasefire, whether in London, Manchester, Edinburgh or elsewhere, indulge with enthusiasm in the provocative chant.
If all of them, according to the Prime Minister, are indeed expressing antisemitism, a great many laws are being routinely broken, from the Public Order Act to the Equality Act and back again.
By Starmer’s reckoning, what we are seeing, in other words, is nothing less than massed criminal hate speech, week after week, with the police standing meekly by. Remind you of anybody? Step forward Suella Braverman, who as home secretary in 2023, drew much controversy by referring to the Gaza rallies as “hate marches” and accusing the police of “double standards”.
Actually, then as now, “from the river to the sea” was the mildest of the chants deployed by the Palestine mob. Other choice slogans include “globalise the Intifada” and, more recently, “death, death to the IDF”.
Given his candid views, therefore, you’d have expected Sir Keir to defend Braverman, right? Wrong.
Here’s what Starmer wrote in the Sunday Telegraph at the time: “Few people in public life have done more recently to whip up division, set the British people against one another and sow the seeds of hatred and distrust than Suella Braverman. In doing so, she demeans her office.”
How times change, eh? To be fair to the man, Sir Keir edition 2023 would have taken one look at the sea of Union flags at his own conference 2025 and squealed about the “far-Right”. Flip-flopping has always his modus operandi.
Nonetheless, I think the Prime Minister owes Braverman an apology. If “from the river to the sea” is inherently antisemitic, then the Gaza marches are indeed hate marches, whatever the Mayor of London may think.
So what is Starmer going to do about it? Surely he can’t just do nothing. Admitting to such mob displays of antisemitism and failing to curb them would be demeaning to his office indeed.
