The decision to host an event in the UK Parliament for the Palestinian Return Centre (PRC), an organisation reportedly linked to Hamas, is not just a matter of poor judgment; it is a disgraceful betrayal of the values that underpin our democratic institutions. To welcome any organisation with alleged ties to a proscribed terrorist group is to turn a blind eye to the bloodshed and suffering caused by Hamas—a group whose charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the targeting of Jewish civilians. This is not diplomacy; it is moral capitulation.

For centuries, the UK Parliament has been a symbol of justice, liberty, and the rule of law. It has weathered countless challenges, stood firm against tyranny, and upheld the principles of decency even when it was inconvenient to do so. But what message does it send when the very seat of our democracy rolls out the red carpet for the PRC, an organisation accused of serving as an arm of Hamas propaganda? It signals weakness. Worse, it provides legitimacy to a movement that thrives on violence and the rejection of peace.

Let us not deceive ourselves about the nature of Hamas and its affiliates. Hamas is recognised globally as a terrorist organisation. Its actions—indiscriminate rocket attacks, the use of human shields, and the brutal suppression of dissent—have caused untold suffering. To allow the PRC, an organisation reportedly tied to this group, to hold an event in Westminster dishonours not just the victims of Hamas’s terror but also the integrity of our nation.

The implications of this cannot be overstated. Hosting the PRC emboldens those who view terror as a legitimate means to achieve political goals. It undermines Britain’s standing as a country committed to justice, human rights, and the rule of law. And it sends a chilling message to those who seek peace: that those aligned with terror can find legitimacy, even in the halls of democracy.

This is not a matter of free speech or engaging with differing perspectives. There are clear red lines, and hosting an event for an organisation with alleged ties to terror crosses them. This is not openness; it is appeasement.

WBII calls on Parliament to investigate how such a gross lapse in judgment occurred and to ensure that safeguards are implemented to prevent this from happening again. The Palestinian Return Centre must not be allowed to use the UK’s democratic institutions as a platform for advancing its agenda or sanitising its alleged connections to extremism.

Our democracy is only as strong as the principles it defends. If Parliament allows itself to become a stage for those aligned with hatred and violence, it will do irreparable harm to its credibility and moral standing. We urge our elected representatives to take decisive action to uphold the integrity of our democratic institutions and to send a clear message: Britain does not tolerate complicity with terror.

Let this be the last time that Britain’s Parliament is used to lend respectability to those who seek to undermine peace and perpetuate hatred.

We Believe in Israel (WBII) has observed with deep concern a sinister rhetorical trend among critics of Israel: the deliberate conflation of the Jewish State with Jews as a whole. Increasingly, those who claim to oppose Israeli policies have abandoned any pretence of nuance, substituting the word "Jews" where "Israelis" might once have sufficed. This shift is not accidental; it is the calculated revival of an age-old hatred, dressed in the language of modern political critique.

To criticise the policies of a state is one thing; to extend that criticism to an entire people is quite another. Yet, across social media, public discourse, and even on university campuses, the line between anti-Israel sentiment and outright antisemitism has been deliberately erased. Criticism of Israel’s government is no longer framed in political or strategic terms but often as an indictment of the Jewish people at large. This is not activism—it is hatred masquerading as moral virtue.

This rhetorical sleight of hand achieves two objectives. First, it weaponises the global visibility of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to resurrect age-old prejudices against Jews under the guise of opposing Zionism. Second, it forces Jewish communities worldwide into a position of collective guilt, as if the actions of the State of Israel were somehow the responsibility of every Jew, regardless of nationality, views, or connection to Israel. Such tactics are as transparent as they are repugnant.

This conflation is not only intellectually dishonest but morally abhorrent. By likening their hatred of Israel to hatred of all Jews, these critics reveal the true nature of their animus. Their issue is not with specific policies or territorial disputes but with the very existence of the Jewish State—and, increasingly, the Jewish people. In doing so, they not only betray their own prejudice but also inflame hostility toward Jewish communities worldwide, who already face unprecedented levels of antisemitism.

WBII urges governments, institutions, and individuals of conscience to expose and condemn this dangerous trend. The distinction between legitimate political criticism and antisemitism must be safeguarded, and those who weaponise language to stoke hatred against Jews must be held accountable. To tolerate this conflation is to invite a return to the darkest chapters of human history, where Jews were targeted not for what they did, but for who they were.

The weaponisation of words against the Jewish people is nothing new, but its resurgence in the guise of anti-Israel rhetoric must be challenged with clarity and courage. WBII stands resolutely against this insidious conflation and will continue to advocate for the rights of Jewish communities to live free from fear, prejudice, and hatred.

We Believe in Israel (WBII) feels compelled to respond to the recent remarks made by Pope Francis, which described Israel's actions in Gaza as "cruelty" and suggested the need to investigate accusations of "genocide." While the Pope's compassion for the suffering of innocents is understandable and commendable, his comments reflect a deeply troubling misreading of the situation—one that risks emboldening those who trade in terror and falsehood.

Israel’s defensive operations in Gaza are not acts of cruelty but an unavoidable response to one of the most heinous attacks in modern history. On October 7, 2023, Hamas militants slaughtered over 1,200 innocent civilians, including children, the elderly, and families, while abducting hundreds more. These were not acts of war; they were atrocities of unspeakable barbarity, designed to instil terror and celebrate death.

The Pope’s failure to explicitly condemn Hamas’s actions and its use of human shields is as bewildering as it is dangerous. Hamas does not simply place its military infrastructure among civilians—it thrives on their deaths, wielding their suffering as propaganda. Schools, hospitals, and residential areas in Gaza have been turned into launching pads for rockets and weapons storage. To ignore this is to grant impunity to those who deliberately weaponise their own people’s lives.

It is Israel, not Hamas, that values life. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) take extraordinary measures to minimise civilian casualties, including issuing warnings before strikes and aborting missions when non-combatants are present. These efforts are virtually unparalleled in modern warfare, yet they are rarely acknowledged by critics.

Pope Francis’s remarks are not just disappointing—they are reckless. They risk lending moral cover to those who seek Israel’s destruction and diminishing the moral clarity required to confront the true perpetrators of cruelty. They also fail to recognise the reality of Israel’s position: a nation surrounded by enemies who deny its right to exist and who revel in the shedding of Israeli blood.

The Pope’s suggestion that Israel’s actions warrant investigation for “genocide” is particularly egregious. Genocide is the systematic annihilation of a people. This label cannot, in good faith, be applied to a nation defending its citizens from an organisation whose stated aim is the eradication of the Jewish state. Such rhetoric cheapens the meaning of genocide and insults the memory of its true victims.

Israel’s war is not a war of choice; it is a war of survival. The Pope’s remarks, though perhaps intended as a call for peace, serve only to obscure the reality of a conflict that pits a democratic state against an ideology of annihilation.

We urge Pope Francis to reconsider his words and to use his immense moral authority to condemn unequivocally the terror and violence propagated by Hamas. True peace will only come when the forces of terror are confronted, not excused, and when Israel’s right to defend itself is acknowledged without equivocation.

We Believe in Israel stands firmly with Israel in its fight against terror and in its pursuit of peace, justice, and security for all. Anything less is not compassion—it is complicity.

The revelations of antisemitism and extremist behaviour at some of Britain’s most prestigious universities are both alarming and disgraceful. That a Cambridge professor could openly relish videos of Hamas terrorists inflicting violence on Israeli soldiers, while Jewish students and academics face abuse, intimidation, and fear for their safety, highlights a pervasive culture of hate masquerading as intellectual discourse.

This is not merely about antisemitism—it is about the unchecked spread of anti-Zionism, which has become the socially acceptable veneer for bigotry. The distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and outright hostility to the Jewish state has long since dissolved in these institutions. Anti-Zionist rhetoric, amplified in lecture halls and common rooms, not only denies Israel’s right to exist but serves to intimidate and silence Jewish voices under the guise of political expression.

Jewish students and academics are now forced to hide their identities, remove outward signs of their faith, and censor their opinions for fear of being targeted. From swastika graffiti to chilling classroom rhetoric, from harassment on the streets to “herd instincts” in academic circles, these institutions have allowed hostility towards Jewish individuals and Zionism to fester unchecked.

Universities have a duty to be bastions of intellectual freedom, yet their leadership has failed. By refusing to confront antisemitism and anti-Zionism decisively, they have allowed these ideologies to flourish. Tokenistic statements and vague commitments are no substitute for meaningful action. Universities must enforce consequences for such behaviour, educate their communities on the realities of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and ensure Jewish students can live, study, and express themselves without fear.

Anti-Zionism has become the Trojan horse for antisemitism in our time. It denies the Jewish people the same rights afforded to every other group: the right to self-determination and security in their homeland. Universities that tolerate or encourage this ideology are complicit in perpetuating a culture of hatred.

WBII demands accountability and immediate action from these institutions. Anything less is an abdication of their responsibilities and a betrayal of their Jewish students and staff.

The BBC’s recent coverage of Syria, particularly remarks made by Lyse Doucet and Jeremy Bowen, exemplifies a troubling trend within the Corporation: the abandonment of historical accuracy and moral clarity in favour of narratives that suit fashionable delusions. It is not merely careless; it is pernicious.

Lyse Doucet’s suggestion that Jews, alongside Muslims and Christians, “want to believe they have a space now as Syria embarks on this new chapter” borders on the absurd. Syria’s Jewish community, once numbering some 40,000 in the mid-20th century, has been decimated by decades of state persecution, pogroms, and policies of enforced exile. Today, the entire Jewish population of Syria could fit comfortably in a small car. To speak of Jews yearning to return to a nation that systematically erased them is an affront to truth and a denial of historical reality.

One might hope that this was an isolated incident, a moment of journalistic naïveté. Yet Jeremy Bowen’s remarks on Israel reveal something far more insidious. His assertion that Israel “preferred a weak dictator” in Bashar al-Assad rather than Islamist militias betrays a wilful misreading of Israel’s position. Bowen’s further insinuation that Israel’s defensive strikes on Assad’s chemical weapons factories undermine peace is worse than ignorance—it is a sly inversion of responsibility. By this logic, Israel’s efforts to safeguard its citizens from existential threats are recast as impediments to peace, while the Assad regime’s war crimes and the destabilising influence of Islamist groups are conveniently sidestepped.

This type of reporting is not only reckless but dangerous. It feeds into a growing trend within certain quarters of the media to whitewash the plight of Jews expelled from Arab lands, while holding Israel uniquely culpable for the instability of the region. This historical revisionism serves no one except those who wish to deny or diminish the persecution of Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa.

The BBC, which styles itself as a paragon of impartiality, must do better. It is not enough to produce compelling television or dramatic narratives; a public service broadcaster has an obligation to adhere to the truth. Anything less risks legitimising falsehoods and perpetuating harmful biases.

WBII calls on the BBC to address these failures, both by correcting the record and by ensuring its future reporting reflects the historical and contemporary realities of the region. If the Corporation continues to indulge in such distortions, it will only succeed in alienating Jewish audiences and eroding its credibility further.

The Jewish people deserve better. The public deserve better. And the BBC, if it wishes to maintain even a shred of its former reputation, must recognise that pandering to anti-Israel sentiment is not just poor journalism—it is a dereliction of duty.

We Believe in Israel (WBII) welcomes the recent commitment expressed by Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds to securing a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the United Kingdom and Israel. This determination highlights the enduring strength of the UK-Israel relationship—a bond built not only on shared economic interests but also on mutual values and strategic alignment.

The significance of this partnership cannot be overstated. Bilateral trade between the UK and Israel has reached an impressive £6.4 billion as of the third quarter of 2023, with sectors such as technology, services, and innovation playing a pivotal role. The proposed FTA aims to deepen these ties, offering unprecedented opportunities for collaboration in areas like digital trade and professional services. For the UK, as the world’s second-largest exporter of services, this agreement represents a critical step in fostering growth and securing a competitive edge in global markets.

Mr. Reynolds’ comments come at a moment of heightened tension in the region, with the conflict in Gaza and its aftermath presenting significant geopolitical challenges. However, his pragmatic approach to addressing specific issues, such as arms export licensing, while continuing to champion the broader economic relationship with Israel, demonstrates a level-headed and principled stance. The UK’s ability to uphold its values while advancing its national interests is precisely what strengthens its global reputation.

The Jewish community in Britain, praised by Mr. Reynolds for its “outstanding” and “outward-looking” contributions, has long been a cornerstone of this partnership. Their influence extends well beyond commerce, embodying the very best of what it means to integrate, innovate, and contribute to society. That this government recognises and values their contributions speaks volumes about its commitment to fostering a harmonious and dynamic relationship with Jewish communities and Israel alike.

The benefits of a strengthened UK-Israel trade agreement are manifold. Economically, it will unlock new opportunities for growth and innovation. Strategically, it reinforces a critical alliance in an increasingly volatile region. And diplomatically, it reaffirms the UK’s position as a nation that values its friends and acts with consistency in its international dealings.

WBII urges the UK government to expedite these negotiations and bring this important agreement to fruition. As we look to the future, it is essential that Britain continues to stand firmly alongside Israel, not only as a trading partner but as an ally in the defence of shared principles and freedoms. In doing so, we ensure that the bond between our nations remains as strong and unshakeable as ever.

This agreement is more than a trade deal—it is a testament to the enduring friendship and mutual respect between the United Kingdom and Israel. WBII will continue to advocate for this partnership, confident in the knowledge that it represents the very best of what can be achieved when nations come together with purpose and resolve.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has long marketed itself as a pillar of humanitarian support, but recent revelations lay bare troubling allegations that demand immediate scrutiny. Claims of links between UNRWA staff and terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, alongside evidence of hate speech and incitement in its educational materials, cast serious doubt over the agency’s legitimacy and neutrality. For any organisation entrusted with significant international funding, such accusations are more than a scandal—they are a fundamental betrayal of its stated mission.

The evidence is damning. Research conducted by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se) reveals that senior educational staff in Gaza linked to UNRWA maintain associations with terror groups, groups whose ideologies glorify violence and division. Even more alarming are findings that UNRWA classrooms propagate materials glorifying terrorism, rather than fostering the peace-building values that the agency claims to champion. These are not isolated failings but systemic issues, raising the question of whether UNRWA’s very structure is designed to perpetuate conflict rather than alleviate it.

Worse still are allegations that UNRWA facilities have been repurposed for militant operations, including the storage of weapons and launching of attacks. Such abuses fundamentally undermine the agency’s claims of neutrality and pose a direct threat to the stability of the region. How can an organisation tasked with providing humanitarian aid credibly argue for impartiality when it is implicated in facilitating violence?

The persistence of these problems highlights a deeper malaise. UNRWA’s existence has not resolved the plight of Palestinian refugees; it has prolonged it. Unlike other refugee agencies that prioritise resettlement and self-reliance, UNRWA has institutionalised a permanent refugee status, entrenching division and dependency for political ends. Far from being a vehicle for peace, it has become an instrument for perpetuating the very grievances it was created to address.

The United Kingdom, like other Western nations, has supported UNRWA for decades under the assumption that it serves a humanitarian purpose. However, this support must now be re-evaluated. Britain cannot continue to fund an organisation whose operations are mired in accusations of extremism and incitement. Instead, the UK must lead the charge for transparency, accountability, and comprehensive reform. If UNRWA cannot meet these standards, alternative solutions for addressing the needs of Palestinian refugees must be explored.

The time for empty assurances is over. The international community has a moral obligation to ensure that aid serves its intended purpose: to build hope, foster peace, and alleviate suffering. Anything less is a betrayal of the values on which humanitarian aid is founded. For UNRWA, the choice is clear—reform or irrelevance. For Britain, the responsibility is equally plain: to hold this agency to account and to prioritise peace over perpetuated division.

The recent arson attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne is a stark and sobering reminder of the pernicious threat of anti-Zionism that continues to rear its head globally. This assault on a historic place of worship, injuring two individuals and causing extensive damage, is not merely an act of vandalism. It is a deliberate attack on the Jewish community’s identity, heritage, and right to live without fear.

The targeting of a synagogue—a sanctuary of faith and a cornerstone of Jewish communal life—is an affront to the principles of tolerance, coexistence, and respect that should underpin any civilised society. Such acts are not isolated incidents; they are part of a troubling pattern of rising anti-Zionism that must be met with unequivocal condemnation and action.

We commend the swift response of Fire Rescue Victoria and the Victoria Police Arson Squad, whose efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice are vital in sending a clear message: antisemitic violence will not and cannot be tolerated. Justice in this instance is not merely for the Jewish community in Melbourne but for all who believe in the sanctity of human dignity and the rule of law.

This attack comes against a backdrop of escalating hostility towards Jewish communities worldwide. Anti-Zionism, often disguised as political discourse or cultural critique, is increasingly emboldened, and its resurgence demands our collective attention and action. Failure to confront this menace is to tacitly allow the erosion of the values that hold free societies together.

We at We Believe In Israel stand in unwavering solidarity with the Jewish community in Melbourne and beyond. This is a moment to recommit ourselves to fighting anti-Zionism in all its forms, to ensuring the safety and dignity of Jewish communities, and to defending the freedoms that allow all faiths and identities to flourish. The burning of a synagogue is a warning—one that demands vigilance, resolve, and courage from all who value liberty and justice.

It is a call to action for governments, civil society, and individuals alike to confront this hatred head-on and to reaffirm the principle that diversity is not a weakness but a strength. Our thoughts are with those directly affected by this attack. But thoughts alone are not enough. We must act, speak out, and ensure that such outrages are met with the full force of justice and the unwavering solidarity of those who refuse to let hatred go unchallenged.

We Believe in Israel categorically rejects the recent report by Amnesty International accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. Such claims are not only without foundation but dangerously undermine the integrity of international discourse on human rights. By distorting the realities of the conflict and advancing a one-sided narrative, this report risks emboldening extremism and jeopardising prospects for peace.

Israel’s military operations in Gaza are conducted in response to relentless aggression from Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation that has launched over 20,000 rockets at Israeli civilian populations this year alone. These actions are not acts of indiscriminate violence but targeted measures aimed at neutralising a direct and ongoing threat. Israel’s efforts to minimise civilian harm—including advanced warning systems and precision strikes—are unprecedented, particularly given Hamas’s use of human shields and its deliberate embedding of military infrastructure within civilian areas.

The accusation of genocide is a grave and reckless misuse of the term. Genocide entails the intentional and systematic destruction of a group, an allegation Amnesty has failed to substantiate. Far from engaging in genocidal actions, Israel provides humanitarian aid to Gaza, including food, water, and medical supplies, even as it defends itself from unprovoked attacks. To frame these actions as genocide is to trivialise the term and demean the victims of actual genocides throughout history.

Amnesty’s glaring omission of Hamas’s role as the instigator of violence is as troubling as it is revealing. By ignoring the group’s charter, which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, and its practice of exploiting the Palestinian population for its own militaristic ends, Amnesty not only absolves Hamas of responsibility but legitimises its actions. Such a selective approach erodes trust in human rights advocacy and shifts focus away from those who are genuinely culpable for the suffering in Gaza.

The consequences of this report extend far beyond rhetoric. Accusations of genocide, when levelled without basis, inflame antisemitism, alienate moderate voices, and embolden extremist actors. They also distort the public’s understanding of the conflict, making constructive dialogue and practical solutions ever more difficult to achieve.

WBII urges policymakers, thought leaders, and the international community to reject this report and its flawed conclusions. Instead, we must reaffirm Israel’s right to self-defence and demand accountability from those who seek to perpetuate violence and hatred. Constructive solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict require a balanced and evidence-based approach, not inflammatory accusations that polarise and undermine trust.

Israel, like any nation, has the right to protect its citizens from terror. Amnesty’s refusal to acknowledge this fundamental reality reflects a troubling shift in the priorities of human rights advocacy. We must not allow biased narratives to dictate the global response to this complex and deeply entrenched conflict.