Can Jewish victims trust policing when a Muslim policing body brands Zionism as hate?
Revelations concerning the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) are a serious wake-up call. The group published, and has now removed, a policy paper last year that said “Zionism represents one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred, stripping Muslims of their humanity.” It also referred to the IDF as a “Zionist terrorist group” and described “alarming and unverified stories about acts of violence” on 7th October.
The policing body is associated with more than a dozen police forces across the country, including West Midlands Police, West Yorkshire Police, Greater Manchester Police and Police Scotland, and is described on the official police recruitment website as having around 1,000 members across the UK.
The concerns raise an unavoidable question. If a Muslim policing association can circulate material that portrays Zionism as a form of hatred against Muslims, how can Jewish members of the public be confident that their complaints will be understood fairly?
The question matters, not simply because police officers should be politically and ideologically impartial, but because the paper addresses the very subjects often weaponised by perpetrators against their Jewish victims: Israel, Zionism, Hamas and October 7th.
Jew-hatred is often expressed through anti-Zionist language. Synagogues, Jewish schools and Jewish businesses have been targeted because of hatred towards Israel. Police officers must not, under any circumstances, adopt narratives that fuel antisemitism. Equally, claiming that Zionism results in anti-Muslim hatred is simply not true and dangerously smears Christians and Jews who hold a Zionist position.
The NAMP document also refers to “Zionist terrorist groups including the IDF”. Again, this is a dangerous narrative, especially when coupled with other demonisation of Israel’s military by politicians and the media. For example, this week, Green Party leader Zack Polanski backed a campaign calling for a list of Britons who have served in the IDF since 7th October and demanded that the UK government introduce a “secondary screening” process for travellers arriving in Britain from Israel. The letter also called for “investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels” of those who have served in the IDF and stated that “nobody wants to live next to a war criminal”.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews rightly described this as an “attempt to demonise Israelis and promote an atmosphere of intimidation against British Jews,” which it branded as a “wholly unacceptable form of discrimination”.
The NAMP paper also claimed that “Zionists” are guilty of “misuse of the Holocaust” when describing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying the “process of dehumanisation by the Nazis towards the Jewish people highlights a broader mechanism of oppression, where dominant groups suppress empathy through propaganda and indoctrination to facilitate cruelty. This mechanism is not confined to the past but is observed in contemporary conflicts, such as the situation between the Israeli Government and Military and Palestinians.”
The paper’s treatment of October 7th is deeply troubling. Hamas terrorists murdered, raped, tortured and abducted civilians in the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. To frame reports of those atrocities primarily as “unverified stories” that increased hatred towards Islam is not merely insensitive; it risks minimising the suffering of Jewish victims and shifting attention away from the perpetrators.
A Board of Deputies spokesperson said: “This disturbing document is full of falsehood including about Jewish identity and history and about the nature of antisemitism. If this is being circulated among officers it poses a direct challenge to the integrity of policing and it should be withdrawn immediately.
“We will be taking this issue up with the relevant bodies within the police and government, to find out how this document came about, how it has been used, and how to ensure that the valued relationships of trust between British Jews and the police are not being undermined.”
A CST spokesperson said: “The content of this document is utterly shocking and the fact it has been published under the imprint of police associations is a disgrace. It contains numerous falsehoods and factual inaccuracies about Jews, Zionism and Israel, some of which could reasonably be viewed as antisemitic. There can be no justification for language that downplays the specific anti-Jewish nature of antisemitism, denies well‑documented terrorist atrocities, and draws inappropriate comparisons with the Holocaust. Such narratives spread misinformation and fuel hostility towards Jewish people. The idea that this report might reflect or influence the views of some serving police officers is deeply alarming.
“At a time of record levels of antisemitism in the UK, it is vital that all policing bodies are clear and robust in understanding and rejecting antisemitism in all its forms, just as they stand against anti‑Muslim hatred and all other forms of prejudice. The police service must uphold the highest standards of professionalism, impartiality and evidence‑based analysis, and material of this nature risks damaging public confidence and raises serious questions about judgement and oversight.”
Many Muslim police officers serve with professionalism and integrity. But an official representative body associated with police forces across Britain should not be publishing material that appears to compromise impartiality.
Jewish confidence in policing is already fragile. At a time of rising antisemitism, Jewish victims need to be certain that when they report a hate incident, they will be treated fairly and professionally.
NAMP should be investigated and police forces should review their affiliation and gives clear assurances that such narratives will not influence policing guidance or training. There should be an explanation of who approved it, whether it was circulated among officers, and whether it was used in any training, guidance or policy discussions.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Secretary should also respond and give assurances that Zionist and pro-Israel views are not being viewed as hatred, and that Jews have no reason to fear two-tier treatment when reporting antisemitism.
Public trust in policing depends on impartiality. When a policing body brands Zionism as hatred, that trust is put at risk.
