Labour condemns Israeli policies abroad while encouraging schools to adopt a definition of antisemitism that includes examples concerning Israel. Can both positions coexist?
In September 2026, the British government announced further measures against illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.
Ministers have stated that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, announced an intended ban on settlement imports and backed international legal scrutiny of Israeli actions.
These are significant criticisms of Israeli government conduct.
Yet, just weeks later, the same Labour government accepted all 27 recommendations of the Bell Report, including encouraging every school and college in England to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.
That definition includes 11 illustrative examples, some specifically concerning criticism of Israel.
Among them are applying discriminatory double standards and comparing contemporary Israeli policy with Nazi actions.
Crucially, the examples are contextual rather than automatic tests of antisemitism. The IHRA framework also explicitly protects criticism of Israel comparable to that directed at other countries.
So there is no formal contradiction in Labour’s positions.
But there is a practical question.
Who decides whether a teenager discussing Gaza is making a legitimate political argument or expressing antisemitism?
The Bell Report itself acknowledges concerns that the IHRA definition could be interpreted in ways that discourage legitimate criticism.
It also calls for schools to consider the time, place and manner of political expression, including flags, slogans and symbols.
Nothing in these recommendations creates a blanket prohibition on pupils criticising Israel. Nevertheless, the possibility of inconsistent interpretation deserves scrutiny.
Imagine a pupil arguing that Israeli settlements are illegal, citing the International Court of Justice and repeating the British government’s own position.
That should not, by itself, constitute antisemitism.
But will every teacher and school leader be equipped to recognise the distinction?
Protecting Jewish pupils from harassment is not negotiable. Neither should be the principle that children can examine governments, international law and controversial political decisions without fear of unfair disciplinary consequences.
If ministers can make a legitimate criticism in Parliament, pupils should be able to discuss that criticism in a classroom.
Labour now has an opportunity to prove that its new guidance will protect both principles.
Leave a Reply