By The government risks teaching Jewish pupils that support for Israel is integral to their identity, and that Palestine solidarity is inherently threatening
UK Education Secretary Lucy Powell speaks in Liverpool on September 27, 2026.
Last week, Education Secretary Lucy Powell accepted Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in British schools and colleges.
While billed as “independent”, this does not appear to be a neutral examination of prejudice against Jewish pupils. Rather, it is a document shaped by what appears to be undeclared ties between UK and Israeli educational and advocacy networks; an undue emphasis on Palestine solidarity as intimidatory and problematic; and a near-exclusive reliance on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of antisemitism. The definition’s appended examples disproportionately target and chill speech about Israel.
The review found that almost three in five Jewish students between the ages of 16 and 19 reported that they had experienced or witnessed antisemitism, rising from about one in five overall. This is an alarming statistic.
Yet the study itself notes that the claim rests on a “low sample size of 92 students who identify as Jewish” within a survey of more than 5,000 people. The data simply does not justify the findings.
By treating antisemitism as a form of racism requiring politicised safeguarding and wider adoption of the IHRA definition, the review risks weaponising antisemitism against Palestine solidarity in education. Further, by addressing antisemitism in isolation from broader conversations about racism, and by restricting support for Palestine, Britain risks alienating students and worsening antisemitism in our schools. Bell’s appointment as an “independent” reviewer sits uneasily with his background. He previously served as permanent secretary at the Department for Education and chief inspector of schools in England.
He is listed as having sat on the National Council of the Academic Study Group on Israel and the Middle East, whose mission is to “initiate or expand active links and research collaboration between academics, specialists and centres-of-excellence in the UK and their counterparts in Israel”. Its director, John Levy, has longstanding ties to the Friends of Israel Educational Foundation and Academic Friends of Israel.
These connections should have prompted the Department for Education to question Bell’s impartiality – yet none of this appears to have been formally declared as a conflict of interest. It is also notable that, in 2005, Bell was accused of Islamophobia while head of Ofsted, after he said that Muslim schools risked undermining social cohesion.
Criticism reframed
Based on my own extensive research, I believe the composition of the review’s reference group raises further concerns about impartiality and neutrality, as the organisational links of some members highlight a substantial, institutionalised ecosystem shaping what many Jewish pupils encounter on Israel and Jewish identity.
These are not abstract associations, yet they receive next to no scrutiny. Israel advocacy organisations, and educational charities with explicit pro-Israel missions, deliver talks, workshops, resources, and engagement programmes to thousands of students nationwide.
Such programmes explicitly seek to cultivate emotional attachment, associate Jewish identity with support for Israel, and encourage Jewish pupils to actively advocate for the country.
Attempts to reframe as antisemitic any criticism of Israel or solidarity with Palestinians, places Jewish pupils at the forefront of a fraught battle they largely did not choose. Such discourse frames Jewish identity as requiring support for Israel, while Palestine solidarity is cast as a hostile, existential threat. The exploitation of legitimate fears and vulnerabilities, whereby young Jews are encouraged to feel intimidated by expressions of support for Palestinian rights, has been examined in documentaries such as Israelism.
The access that Israel advocacy organisations have to schools should raise serious concerns about neutrality in the opposite direction, particularly given their potential to promote negative tropes and stereotypes about Palestine and Palestinians.
In a similar vein, one of the review’s most alarming outputs is its reinforcement of the notion that Palestine solidarity is inherently linked to antisemitism. This polarisation of discussion around the UK’s genuine antisemitism problem is dangerous. Many leftists, who should be natural allies of oppressed minorities, are so fed up with having Palestine solidarity denounced as antisemitic that they shut down when it comes to tackling actual antisemitism.
If the government restricts Palestine solidarity in schools by using antisemitism as a convenient scapegoat, the backlash could have dire consequences, not least for Jewish students facing genuine antisemitism. This could hamper efforts to implement a coherent strategy.
Indeed, efforts to combat antisemitism are far more successful when bigotry is tackled through intersectional approaches that allow every student to feel seen, while simultaneously learning about the specific, devastating and lethal history of anti-Jewish oppression. Educators can highlight Jewish historical trauma not to minimise others’ experiences, but to build deep, empathetic connections across cultural and ethnic boundaries.
AfrikTimes reached out to Bell and the Department for Education for comment, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
Political pressure
I would go so far as to warn that political pressure seeking to exploit antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism threatens to strip away the infrastructure needed to combat it. This further undermines meaningful efforts to tackle hatred of Jews.
When allegations of antisemitism are weaponised to excuse Israel’s crimes, a question mark is placed over those reporting it, in a way that victims of other forms of racism do not face. When a Jewish person reports experiencing antisemitism today, observers might wonder: was this actual antisemitism, or have they been taught to view Palestine solidarity and anti-Zionism as anti-Jewish hatred and a personal attack?
This chilling effect, already felt in free speech and the exploration of Palestine-related issues, also threatens the fight against antisemitism. It risks encouraging dismissive attitudes towards anti-Jewish prejudice, hatred and oppression.
Let’s be crystal clear: antisemitism is real, pervasive, cyclical and pernicious. Jews should not have to fight this blight alone, and Jewish children must be protected as an absolute priority. We can acknowledge that antisemitism is a growing problem in our schools and society, while guarding against its weaponisation in the context of Palestine solidarity. In 2024, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research found that 23 percent of parents reported their child had experienced antisemitism directly at school, in the vicinity of school, or travelling to or from school. This is not insignificant, but it is far below the figures published in the Bell review.
The review’s framing worryingly subordinates classic antisemitic abuse – Hitler salutes, Holocaust jokes, money stereotypes, physical assaults, isolation and intimidation – to concerns about Palestine solidarity badges, flags, symbols and “political expression”.
An analysis by Newscord, examining the review’s text, found that roughly a quarter of it concerns Israel, Palestine or political expression. The terms of reference effectively locked in the IHRA approach from the outset, precluding consideration of alternative definitions that do not focus so heavily on criticism of Israel.
Many responses to the call for evidence, including 158 critical of the review itself or of the use of the IHRA definition, were not meaningfully reflected or quoted.
In addition, despite the review identifying “confusion around the boundary between legitimate political expression and antisemitism”, a majority of those directly asked – 526 out of 590 – said they could distinguish between the two. This finding was omitted from the main report.
The government risks teaching Jewish pupils that support for Israel is integral to their identity, and that Palestine solidarity, or criticism of Israeli policy, is inherently threatening to them as Jews. It also risks teaching non-Jewish students that their Jewish classmates see Israel as integral to their identity, and that suggesting otherwise is deeply racist.
This reinforces, rather than challenges, the harmful assumption that Jewish students must “support or have views on the state of Israel” because of their Jewish identity – ironically, something the report itself confirms causes deep discomfort among Jewish pupils and staff.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of AfrikTimes.
