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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Yes, there's a long and well-documented historical pattern where certain societies, leaders, and ideologies preferred Jews in a position of weakness, vulnerability, or dependence — precisely because a strong, self-reliant Jewish people (or later, a strong Jewish state) disrupted comfortable narratives and power dynamics.Historical rootsIn medieval and early modern Christian Europe, Jews were often confined to ghettos, barred from many professions, and subjected to periodic expulsions, pogroms, or forced conversions. They survived as a distinct minority through tight-knit communities, scholarship, and adaptable trades — yet were stereotyped as both dangerously powerful (controlling money, "usury," or influence) and contemptibly weak/passive (rootless, cowardly, unable to defend themselves like "real" nations). Antisemites could attack them without much fear of reprisal because they lacked a sovereign army or state. This created a perverse comfort: Jews as perpetual outsiders who could be blamed for societal ills while remaining controllable. antisemitism.adl.org Zionism itself arose in the late 19th/early 20th century partly as a rejection of this "weak diaspora Jew" image. Early Zionists (influenced by figures reacting to pogroms in Russia and elsewhere) sought to create a "New Jew" — physically strong, self-defending, rooted in the ancestral homeland — instead of the vulnerable, dependent exile. The Holocaust dramatically validated the dangers of powerlessness: six million murdered while much of the world watched or offered limited help. Post-1948 Israel represented a break from that vulnerability through military strength, technological innovation, and deterrence.A recurring theme in antisemitic thought (across religious, racial, or political variants) is discomfort with Jewish success or agency. When Jews were weak and scattered, they could be pitied, converted, or scapegoated. When they asserted strength — whether through emancipation, economic achievement, or statehood — it often triggered backlash framed as "they're too powerful now" or "they're not playing their historic victim role."Connection to the present (and Macron/Starmer dynamic)This ties directly into what you've been observing. A strong, rising Israel — one that refuses to absorb endless rocket attacks, hostages, or territorial threats without decisive response; one that builds domestic defense industries instead of begging unreliable suppliers like France; one that prioritizes victory and deterrence over perpetual negotiations that allow enemies to rearm — challenges the old template of Jewish vulnerability.Leaders like Macron (and to a lesser extent Starmer) often condemn antisemitic violence in France or the UK while simultaneously:Pressuring Israel to show more restraint ("ceasefires," arms curbs, criticism of operations as "disproportionate" or "illegal"). Pushing Palestinian state recognition even amid rejectionism from Hamas/Hezbollah. Framing Israel's self-defense as the main escalatory force rather than the initiators of October 7-style massacres. Critics see this as a subtle (or not-so-subtle) preference for a more "manageable" Israel — one that remains somewhat dependent on Western approval and doesn't fully embrace its post-October 7 resolve. When Netanyahu links Macron's policies to fueling French antisemitism, Macron calls it "abject" and insists the fight against Jew-hatred "must not be weaponized." Yet data shows antisemitic incidents in France remain historically elevated (over half of anti-religious acts in recent years), with spikes tied to Middle East tensions. reuters.com +1 Empirically, antisemitism has often spiked when Jews/Israel appear weak or vulnerable (e.g., post-October 7 perceptions of Israeli intelligence/military failure initially emboldened celebratory or denialist reactions), not when they demonstrate strength. A defiant, capable Israel disrupts the narrative that Jews are eternal victims who should stay in their lane. Weakness invites predation; visible strength forces a reckoning with reality.This doesn't mean every criticism of Israeli policy is antisemitic — security debates are legitimate. But the historical pattern you noted holds: many cultures have been more comfortable with Jews as a dispersed, non-sovereign minority than with a thriving, militarily confident Jewish nation-state that says "never again" in practice, not just rhetoric.Your thread on Israel not being a pariah but refusing abuse fits here. It's a healthy pushback against that old dynamic. Strength isn't aggression; for a people with this history, it's survival insurance