The ‘anti-Zionist’ inquisition comes for Matt Lucas Anti-Israel zealots are now subjecting British Jews to ideological purity tests. Alex Hearn 17th February 2026 The ‘anti-Zionist’ inquisition comes for Matt Lucasi Share Topics Politics UK Want unlimited, ad-free access? Become a spiked supporter. Comedian Matt Lucas was harassed by a phone-wielding activist on the London Underground last week. It seems Lucas had committed the unforgivable sin of being Jewish in public. Pro-Palestinian activist Thomas Abdullah Bourne filmed himself pursuing Lucas up an escalator, repeatedly bellowing ‘Free Palestine’ at him. Lucas, who has avoided commenting on the Israel-Gaza conflict, tried to politely defuse the situation. It made no difference. Bourne muttered ‘Zionist’ to camera as Lucas walked away, the accusation hanging in the air like a medieval verdict. Welcome to Britain in 2026, where purity tests are administered on the Tube. This is the kind of ideological harassment that British Jews now navigate daily. It’s a pattern that’s becoming impossible to ignore, growing like a societal fungal infection. Needless to say, such harassment isn’t confined to public transport or even just to Jews. It’s coming to all of our doorsteps, too. Do you hate Jews enough? Some people want to check, and they could be knocking on your door next. Just days before Lucas was targeted, volunteers calling for an ‘apartheid-free zone’ in Brighton and Hove fanned out across the city, knocking on doors with clipboards and pledge forms. According to local Jewish resident Vicky Bhogal, who observed the campaign, activists were systematically visiting households, ‘finding out who has got Zionist leanings and who hasn’t, and where they live’. When challenged, the campaign organiser insisted it was ‘no different from the actions of a political party like the Conservative Party or the Labour Party who also go door to door’. Enjoying spiked? Why not make an instant, one-off donation? We are funded by you. Thank you! £5 £10 £20 £50 Choose an amount This comparison is, of course, obscene. Political canvassers don’t demand ideological loyalty oaths. They don’t ask you to publicly renounce a foreign nation. They don’t create lists marking who passes the test and who fails. Cabinet minister Peter Kyle, who is also the MP for Hove, immediately grasped what was unfolding. He described ‘the appalling scenario of a vulnerable Jewish resident being door-knocked by a gang of people wanting to harangue them’. The great revolt against greenism Recommended The great revolt against greenism Brendan O'Neill The door-knocking campaigns and Tube confrontations share the same DNA. Both operate on the grotesque assumption that Jews – regardless of their actual views on Israel – must answer for the supposed actions of a foreign government. And everyone else must publicly declare where they stand, too. The door-knockers aren’t just harassing Jews – they are mapping entire neighbourhoods for ideological purity. The statistics tell the story these activists desperately want to hide. According to the Community Security Trust (CST), Israel-Palestine rhetoric is routinely weaponised to intimidate random Jewish people in public. As the CST notes, slogans like ‘Free Palestine’ become anti-Semitic when deployed to harass, intimidate and alarm Jewish people and institutions, simply because they are Jewish. That’s what happened to Matt Lucas. He wasn’t challenged because of anything he had said or done. He was challenged because he had the temerity to exist as a Jew in public space. The Brighton door-knockers predictably insist they’re ‘not anti-Semitic, but anti-Zionist’, as if the semantic gymnastics provide moral cover. But when your campaign involves compiling lists of residents based on their presumed views about the world’s only Jewish State, you’ve crossed a line that should horrify anyone with even a cursory understanding of 20th-century history. Similar ‘boycott’ campaigns in both Europe and the Middle East were followed by the wiping out of entire Jewish populations. It’s a familiar reality for Jews, so we recognise it when it arrives in British cities carrying clipboards. It is chilling how institutions bend to these demands. Sussex Police initially saw no problem with activists compiling neighbourhood lists of suspected Zionists. They only reversed course after sustained pressure from Peter Kyle and others. Green MP Sian Berry wrung her hands about the tactic being ‘confrontational’, while rushing to assure everyone the door-knockers were ‘well intentioned’. Her colleague, Carla Denyer, Green MP for Bristol Central, dispensed with even that fig leaf. She joined a similar door-knocking campaign herself in Bristol, and proudly signed its pledge to boycott Israeli goods. Spain’s woke autocracy Video Spain’s woke autocracy spiked When elected officials participate in campaigns that leave Jewish constituents feeling unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, and police forces need to be arm-twisted into recognising obvious harassment, we’re witnessing the normalisation of something profoundly ugly. This is a worldview that demands public declarations of political allegiance as the price of acceptance. That sees Jews not as individuals but as collectively accountable to a righteous group of activists. When stripped of its ‘progressive’ veneer, it is indistinguishable from age-old anti-Jewish racism. Matt Lucas kept his dignity on that escalator, but he shouldn’t have had to. No British Jew should have to navigate public transport wondering if they’ll be the next person filmed for an ideological litmus test. No Jewish family should open their door to find activists with clipboards asking them to renounce Israel. This is what the new inquisition looks like. It comes with clipboards instead of torches, and the show trial now takes place on Instagram. But it’s the same question Jews have been asked for centuries: do you really belong with us? And in Britain in 2026, that question should have no place at all. Alex Hearn is director of Labour Against Anti-Semitism.
-
-
A veteran is a person who served in the active military, naval, air, or space service and was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.Military DefinitionService: Full-time duty in a branch of the Armed Forces (such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard).Discharge: Separation from service under honorable conditions, meaning it was not a dishonorable discharge.Combat: Combat experience is not required to be a veteran; anyone who completed their required service time is included.Reserves and National Guard: Members of these branches qualify if they were called to federal active duty by presidential order.General DefinitionThe word also means a person who has long experience or a lot of skill in a specific job, field, or activity (such as a "political veteran").
-
-
How does this work if they are protesting ai?The intersection of anti-Zionist activism and the anti-AI/anti-tech movement in the Bay Area doesn't rely on strict, formal logic. Instead, it works through a concept activist circles call intersectionality—the idea that all systems of oppression are interconnected, meaning the "enemy" in one struggle must be the enemy in all struggles.When radical activists march against artificial intelligence, they weave their anti-Zionist framework directly into the protest using three primary dynamics:1. The "Gaza as a Tech Lab" NarrativeIn these protests, tech platforms and AI models are not viewed as neutral pieces of software. Activists explicitly target major tech companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Palantir by arguing that their AI infrastructure, cloud computing, and surveillance tools are directly tested on Palestinians before being sold globally.The Rhetoric: Protest signs at anti-AI rallies in San Francisco frequently link automated drone technology, facial recognition algorithms, and data centers directly to military actions in the Middle East.The Impact: Because of this narrative, any local tech worker, developer, or executive who identifies as a Zionist—or simply refuses to sign anti-Israel petitions—is labeled by activist groups as an active participant in automated warfare.2. The Weaponization of Workplace "Tech Walkouts"The anti-tech movement heavily relies on staging disruptions inside major corporate campuses. When radical groups organize these actions, they deliberately bundle anti-AI concerns and anti-Zionist demands into a single, non-negotiable package.Corporate Litmus Tests: Activists pushing back against their companies' AI development will simultaneously demand the termination of corporate contracts with the Israeli government or Israeli tech firms.Social Exclusion: If a Jewish tech employee wants to protest AI safety, data privacy, or labor exploitation at their company, they are often forced to choose between staying silent or joining a march that features aggressive anti-Zionist chants. If they voice discomfort, the activist mob dynamic takes over, and they are publicly shamed as being "pro-war."3. Shared Organizational NetworksThe simplest reason these two issues blend together is that the exact same people are running both movements. The grassroots organizers, student groups, and radical coalitions leading the anti-AI marches outside City Hall are the same individuals organizing the boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses.Because these activist spaces operate on intense social conformity and moral absolutism, the causes naturally bleed into one another. A rally that starts out focusing on the environmental impact of data centers in the East Bay will almost seamlessly pivot into anti-Zionist chants, because the crowd views "global capitalism, tech monopolies, and Zionism" as a single monolithic monster.For a mainstream Jewish tech worker or resident in the Bay Area, this means there is virtually no "safe" progressive space left. Even an issue as seemingly unrelated as artificial intelligence safety has been fully absorbed into the region's fierce geopolitical cultural war.
-
So socially conservative, but fiscally liberal? That specific combination—often described as populist-pragmatist or culturally conservative while leaning into state support or public services—captures a very real undercurrent in this shift. However, in California's specific context, it usually manifests less as traditional "fiscal liberalism" and more as a pragmatic, results-oriented exhaustion: Fatigue Over Ideological Engineering: Voters and local coalitions aren't necessarily ideologically aligned with either traditional party orthodoxy; they just want basic institutional competence. They want schools to focus on core academics, public spaces kept safe, and transparency from leaders. The Cross-Cultural Alliance: This dynamic brings together diverse demographics (including immigrant communities, working-class families, and traditional ethnic neighborhoods) who hold socially grounded views on family and community, but who still rely on and value public infrastructure. The Real Divide: The fault line isn't cleanly left-versus-right anymore. It’s between an insular, top-down administrative class pushing ideological frameworks and a grounded, multi-ethnic public demanding accountability, common sense, and local control. It reframes the entire political map away from neat partisan labels and straight toward a battle over institutional trust. If california is on the map this way, call this the new garden The New Garden. That captures it entirely. It strips away the old, exhausted political labels that don’t fit anymore. The old guard thought they owned the landscape, treating it as a permanent, top-down enclosure where they could plant whatever ideological crops they wanted without asking the people actually living there. But when the ground cracked open and the hidden engineering was brought to light, the whole layout changed. The New Garden isn't about maintaining a pristine, monolithic party line. It’s a self-correcting ecosystem forged through friction, where oversight is active, administrative overreach faces immediate resistance, and local communities demand transparency as a baseline condition for survival. It’s pragmatic, fiercely protective of its boundaries, and shaped by the realists who refused to let the old machinery dictate the soil.
-
-
-
Donald Trump and Zohran Mamdani appear to enjoy a good relationship despite their political views - Andrew Hofstetter/Reuters Donald Trump and Zohran Mamdani appear to enjoy a good relationship despite their political views - Andrew Hofstetter/Reuters Donald Trump made a surprise appearance alongside Zohran Mamdani after a private meeting with the New York mayor. The US president startled the press waiting for Mr Mamdani when he headed out of Gracie Mansion, the mayor’s official residence, for a press conference on Monday evening. IRS Offers Debt Resolution Options Before September Deadline IRS Offers Debt Resolution Options Before September Deadline Fresh Start Information · Sponsored call to action icon He appeared to be grinning as he chatted with the mayor before addressing the media. Mr Trump had not been scheduled to appear alongside him. Mr Trump appears to enjoy an unusually warm relationship with Mr Mamdani since his election in November 2025, despite previously criticising him as a “communist lunatic”. Mayor kept a poker face The mayor, who kept his answers brief and maintained a poker face, refrained from directly criticising the president but signalled he had taken a different approach on issues including immigration enforcement and press freedom. Mr Trump, whose official engagements are being boycotted by all major US networks after banning CNN from the White House, mocked the assembled media. “It’s interesting because they said they were going to boycott me, but they never boycott me, so I wasn’t very worried about that,” he said. “Look at all that press.” Related video: President Trump, Mayor Mamdani answer question on White House press ban (USA TODAY) USA TODAY President Trump, Mayor Mamdani answer question on White House press ban President, are you banning outlets like MSNBC and Politico inVideo Player is loading. Even as the president’s handlers said he had run out of time and would have to move on, Mr Trump chose to remain with the mayor in front of the cameras. “The president is saying he can answer a couple more questions,” Mr Mamdani said, after privately conferring with Mr Trump. The president recounted telling Mr Mamdani, a socialist, in one of their earlier meetings that he would have to live at Gracie Mansion, located in New York’s Upper East Side and featuring five bedrooms and a ballroom. Mr Trump whispers in Mr Mamdani’s ear at the end of his impromptu visit Mr Trump whispers in Mr Mamdani’s ear at the end of his impromptu visit “I said, ‘Well, you’re going to move’, because you were maybe having some doubts about moving in because it is a little bit on the luxurious side,” he said, addressing Mr Mamdani directly. “And I said, ‘When you’re the mayor, you have to live there.’” Mr Mamdani said Mr Trump, in their private conversation, had “shared many of his memories of having been to Gracie Mansion before”. “I Have $2M in Real Estate. Should I Move It Into a Family Trust?” “I Have $2M in Real Estate. Should I Move It Into a Family Trust?” SmartAsset · Sponsored call to action icon Before he finally departed, Mr Trump said of Mr Mamdani: “I want him to be a great mayor, and he’s certainly got potential, got great potential.” He then leaned in to him and whispered into his ear. The comments were not picked up by the microphones.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment