The Islamic Human Rights Commission’s (IHRC) call for universities and councils to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) is a deeply troubling development that strikes at the heart of historical truth and societal unity. This brazen attempt to undermine a day dedicated to reflecting on humanity’s darkest chapter not only dishonours the memory of the Holocaust’s victims but also jeopardises the vital work of educating future generations about the consequences of hatred and prejudice.

Holocaust Memorial Day is not a political statement. It is a solemn and inclusive moment for people of all backgrounds to remember the millions of Jews and others who perished in the Holocaust, as well as the victims of subsequent genocides. It is a day for reflection, education, and unity—values that transcend political and ideological divides. By encouraging universities and councils to boycott this essential occasion, the IHRC is promoting division and enabling the erosion of historical truth at a time when antisemitism and Holocaust denial are on the rise.

The IHRC’s call for a boycott is part of a dangerous trend that conflates Holocaust remembrance with narrow political narratives, including the weaponisation of antizionism as a guise for antisemitism. This tactic not only distorts the universal lessons of the Holocaust but also fosters a climate of hostility toward Jewish communities. Universities and councils that heed this call risk alienating students, staff, and residents who recognise the importance of remembrance in fostering inclusion, tolerance, and mutual understanding.

We Believe in Israel (WBII) firmly rejects the IHRC’s attempt to politicise Holocaust Memorial Day and calls on universities and councils across the UK to resist this divisive agenda. Instead, we urge these institutions to embrace HMD as an opportunity to educate, unite, and reflect. Universities, as centres of learning, have a particular responsibility to lead by example, ensuring students understand the Holocaust’s historical significance and its ongoing relevance in combating prejudice and extremism. Local councils, as representatives of diverse communities, should also play a key role in promoting HMD observance, hosting inclusive events, and fostering dialogue that strengthens social cohesion.

WBII also calls on the UK government to take decisive action by enshrining Holocaust Memorial Day in law. This step would safeguard HMD’s place as a cornerstone of Britain’s commitment to remembrance, education, and the fight against hatred. It would send a clear message that attempts to undermine this day, such as the IHRC’s boycott, will not succeed in eroding Britain’s resolve to honour the memory of the Holocaust and uphold its lessons.

The IHRC’s boycott call is a stark reminder of the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day in countering misinformation, distortion, and division. Institutions that reject this call and actively participate in HMD reaffirm their commitment to the values of truth, justice, and human dignity. By standing together in remembrance, universities, councils, and communities can ensure that the lessons of the Holocaust remain a powerful force for good, teaching future generations to value inclusion and to resist the forces of hate.

We urge all leaders, educators, and institutions to reject the IHRC’s divisive agenda and to reaffirm their commitment to Holocaust Memorial Day. Together, we can ensure that the promise of “Never Again” is not only remembered but realised in a society that values unity, truth, and justice for all.

The recent conduct of Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, is both alarming and emblematic of a deeper malaise within certain international institutions. Her appalling invocation of Holocaust comparisons to criticise Israel not only distorts history but also trivialises one of humanity’s darkest chapters. Such rhetoric is as offensive as it is dangerous, fuelling antisemitism under the guise of advocacy.

It is telling that a figure entrusted with the solemn duty of defending human rights has instead chosen to engage in crude propaganda. By invoking Nazi Germany to describe the modern Jewish state, Albanese has crossed the line from criticism into outright delegitimisation. This grotesque inversion of history diminishes the suffering of Holocaust victims and mocks the values that the United Nations is meant to uphold.

The United Nations must act decisively. To retain its moral authority, it cannot allow its representatives to perpetuate hatred, much less endorse figures aligned with regimes like Iran, which openly call for Israel’s destruction. The Special Rapporteur has rendered herself unfit for her role. Her continued tenure is an affront to the principles of neutrality, decency, and historical truth.

At We Believe in Israel, we stand resolutely against such reckless and inflammatory narratives. Antisemitism is not merely a relic of the past but a persistent force that must be confronted at every turn. We call on the international community to reject this dangerous rhetoric and demand higher standards from those who claim to champion human rights.

The Holocaust teaches us many lessons, but chief among them is the perils of silence in the face of rising hatred. We urge the United Nations to ensure its representatives embody this lesson—not undermine it.

We Believe in Israel is appalled by the National Portrait Gallery’s decision to feature a portrait of Nelly Adam, also known as Queen Niche, despite the unmistakable antisemitic undertones of her social media activity. This choice is not just tone-deaf but emblematic of a broader malaise infecting cultural institutions—a willingness to turn a blind eye to antisemitism under the guise of promoting ‘diverse voices’.

Let us be clear: the issue at hand is not about artistic freedom or political discourse but a matter of basic decency and the rejection of prejudice. Queen Niche’s public platforms have amplified rhetoric that any responsible institution would categorically reject. Among the highlights of her online activity are the following:

• Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany—comparisons that trivialise the Holocaust and fall squarely within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
• The historically baseless claim that “Jesus was a Palestinian,” a grotesque distortion of history that erases the Jewish identity of a figure central to Christianity and Judaism alike.
• Retweets of the disgraced academic David Miller, whose vile insinuations about Jewish power and influence have no place in civilised discourse.
• Support for the genocidal chant “From the River to the Sea,” a rallying cry widely understood as a call for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state and the annihilation of its inhabitants.

This is not the behaviour of someone deserving public celebration. It is the behaviour of someone who uses their platform to stoke division, propagate historical falsehoods, and normalise antisemitic rhetoric.

The National Portrait Gallery’s role is not merely to display works of art but to shape the cultural narrative of Britain. By featuring Queen Niche, the gallery is not just making an error of judgment—it is engaging in the tacit endorsement of hate. One wonders if such indulgence would be extended to individuals who shared similarly vile rhetoric about other ethnic or religious groups.

We call on the National Portrait Gallery to reconsider its decision. This is not about silencing dissent but about refusing to legitimise hatred. We further urge the gallery to consult with Jewish organisations and community leaders to understand why such rhetoric is profoundly offensive and antithetical to the principles of inclusion and mutual respect.

Britain’s cultural institutions must stand for more than fashionable causes or social media trends. They must stand for truth, decency, and the rejection of hatred in all its forms. To do otherwise is not just a betrayal of their Jewish constituents but a betrayal of Britain’s moral fabric.

The recent pronouncement by a UN Special Rapporteur, calling for a global medical boycott of Israel, is not merely misguided but profoundly pernicious. It is a flagrant abuse of the United Nations’ platform, which ought to serve as a guardian of impartiality and a promoter of universal human rights. Instead, this proposal seeks to politicise medicine—an endeavour that should remain above the fray of political hostilities—and weaponise it against one nation alone.

Medicine has always been one of humanity’s great unifiers. It transcends borders, politics, and ideologies, offering succour to the suffering irrespective of nationality or creed. Israel’s contributions to this noble endeavour are unparalleled. From life-saving cancer treatments to groundbreaking medical technologies like the ingestible pill camera, Israel has enriched the global healthcare landscape. A boycott of these innovations would not hurt Israel but would harm millions worldwide who depend on these advancements, including some of the world's most vulnerable communities.

What makes this call particularly grotesque is its disregard for the real-world consequences, particularly for Palestinian communities. Every year, thousands of Palestinian patients receive critical care in Israeli hospitals—care that is unavailable elsewhere in the region. Denying them access to Israeli expertise and medical technology would be an act of cruelty, punishing those most in need to satisfy an ideological grudge. It is a grotesque irony that those who claim to act on behalf of Palestinians would deprive them of life-saving care.

The UN, an institution ostensibly committed to universal values, increasingly finds itself mired in selective and partisan agendas. While egregious human rights abuses proliferate in countries such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea, Israel—a liberal democracy with robust protections for minorities—becomes the perpetual scapegoat. This double standard is not just a moral failing; it corrodes the credibility of the UN itself.

If the rapporteur were genuinely concerned with healthcare, they might direct their energies towards regimes that systematically deprive their citizens of basic medical care. Instead, they choose to single out Israel, not because it is the most egregious offender, but because it is the easiest target.

To call for a boycott of Israeli medical innovation is to set a dangerous precedent. Once medicine becomes a political weapon, its universality—and therefore its efficacy—is fatally undermined. Are we to deny life-saving treatments to patients based on their geographic origin or political affiliations? Such a stance betrays the very essence of medical ethics and flies in the face of the Hippocratic Oath.

Israel’s record of medical diplomacy is a testament to what is possible when healthcare is treated as a bridge rather than a battleground. Israeli hospitals have provided aid in disaster-stricken regions, from Haiti to Nepal, and have shared expertise during global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. A boycott would sever these connections, to the detriment of all.

This proposal by the UN Special Rapporteur is not merely ill-conceived; it is emblematic of a broader malaise in international institutions—a willingness to pander to ideological fervour at the expense of fairness, logic, and humanity. The UN must resist this descent into cynicism. It must uphold its founding principles by rejecting calls for divisive and punitive measures that harm the very people they purport to protect.

Medicine, like human rights, should unite rather than divide. It is high time the UN remembered this simple truth. Anything less is a betrayal of the values it claims to represent.

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.