Key Takeaways
- British Jewish organizations condemned a policy paper issued by the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) that labeled Zionism as anti‑Muslim hatred, likened the Gaza war to the Holocaust, and denied well‑documented Hamas atrocities.
- The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, and the Jewish Leadership Council called the document “disturbing,” demanded its immediate withdrawal, and urged police forces to investigate and discipline those responsible.
- NAMP distanced itself from the report, removed it from its website, and stated that its former vice‑president, Khaldoun Kabbani, was no longer affiliated with the group and that NAMP does not support Hamas or any proscribed organization.
- The controversy erupted amid a surge in antisemitic incidents in the UK, with polling showing 83 % of British Jews feel the police are not doing enough to protect them, raising concerns about “two‑tier policing” and eroding trust between Jewish communities and law‑enforcement agencies.
British Jewish groups express alarm over NAMP report
The Board of Deputies of British Jews described the NAMP paper as “disturbing” in its portrayal of Jewish identity, history, and the nature of antisemitism. They warned that if the document were circulating among police officers it would directly challenge the integrity of policing and should be withdrawn immediately. The statement reflected growing unease within the British Jewish community about the influence of extremist narratives within institutions meant to protect all citizens.
Content of the NAMP policy paper
Titled From Past Prejudices to Present Policies: Confronting anti‑Muslim hatred and Promoting Human Rights, the 39‑page document authored by then‑vice‑president Khaldoun Kabbani claimed that “Zionism represents one of the manifestations of anti‑Muslim hatred.” It likened the Israel‑Gaza conflict to the Holocaust, disputed facts about Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 attack—including the killing of Israeli children—and engaged in Holocaust inversion and denial of Hamas atrocities. These assertions were presented as part of a broader human‑rights agenda but were widely rejected as antisemitic propaganda.
Board of Deputies calls for immediate action
In its formal response, the Board of Deputies urged the relevant government and police departments to investigate the paper’s provenance, determine how it was being used, and take steps to ensure that trust between British Jews and the police is not undermined. The group emphasized the need for a clear, public distancing from the document and warned that failure to act could exacerbate community tensions at a time of rising antisemitic violence.
Campaign Against Antisemitism highlights policing concerns
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) warned that the report’s presence on an official police.uk domain raised serious questions about the fitness of those who published it to serve as officers. CAA’s director of investigations, Steven Silverman, called for immediate professional‑standards investigations and potential dismissals, asserting that the document validated Jewish fears of “two‑tier policing” where antisemitic crimes go unpunished. CAA pledged to press the government to send an unequivocal message that such extremist material cannot be tolerated within law‑enforcement ranks.
Jewish Leadership Council condemns Holocaust inversion
A spokesperson for the Jewish Leadership Council labeled the paper “deeply troubling,” noting that it falsely frames an ideology held by the majority of Jewish people as a threat to Muslims. The council condemned the document’s Holocaust inversion and its denial of Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities, warning that such rhetoric threatens community cohesion and undermines police legitimacy, especially amid a surge in violent antisemitic attacks across the UK.
NAMP distances itself and removes the report
Following public backlash, NAMP issued a statement saying it had removed the paper “immediately” after learning of its existence and stressed that the author, Khaldoun Kabbani, was no longer associated with the organization. The group declared that it does not “defend” Hamas or any other proscribed entity, condemned all forms of terrorism and extremism, and expressed regret for any concern or misunderstanding the document may have caused.
Rising antisemitic incidents fuel distrust in police
The controversy unfolded against a backdrop of increasing antisemitic hate crimes in the UK. Polling by the Campaign Against Antisemitism showed that 83 % of British Jews believe the police are insufficiently protecting them, a sentiment that the NAMP report appeared to confirm. This erosion of confidence has intensified debates over whether policing practices treat victims of different identities unequally, a concern often referred to as “two‑tier policing.”
The Henry Nowak case and the two‑tier policing debate
The Spectator’s coverage of the NAMP report referenced the December murder of Henry Nowak, a case that has fueled allegations of disparate police responses to victims based on ethnicity or religion. Critics argue that such perceptions of bias are exacerbated when internal police documents appear to endorse extremist views, further straining relations between law‑enforcement and minority communities already feeling vulnerable.
Metropolitan Police response and broader implications
The Metropolitan Police of London, the UK’s largest force and a formal NAMP affiliate, declined to comment on the specific report but noted that it has recently increased patrols in Jewish communities to curb antisemitic violence. The episode underscores the need for police services to vet internal publications rigorously, ensure affiliations do not propagate hateful narratives, and maintain transparent outreach to preserve public trust.
Conclusion: safeguarding trust and community safety
The NAMP episode highlights the fragility of police‑community relations in an era of heightened identity‑based tensions. While NAMP has moved to distance itself from the offending document, Jewish leaders insist that concrete actions—investigations, accountability, and clear public statements—are essential to restore confidence. Ensuring that law‑enforcement institutions reject extremist ideologies and protect all citizens equally remains a prerequisite for effective policing and social cohesion in the United Kingdom.