This is the final article in a special series which began in the blessed month of Ramadan. The series aims to uncover the ideological component to the post-Gaza plan based on UAE’s approach to deforming Islam and forcing an Israel-friendly secularism through the patriarchal figure of Abraham. This concluding piece examines the policy-level implementation of this plan in the UK.
- Read Part I – “Denazification” and the UAE Blueprint
- Read Part II – The CVE-driven, Pro-Israeli, “Abrahamic Family House”
- Read Part III – The Christian-Zionist Beneficiaries of the “Abrahamic Family House” Project
- Read Part IV – The Secular Anti-Islam Foundations of the “Abrahamic Family House”
- Read Part V – Defending the Anti-Palestinians “Abrahamic Family House” Supra-Religion
- Read Part VI – “Interfaith Mark II” and the “Religion of Abraham” in the West
It is no coincidence that the “Goebbels of Gaza”, Eylon Levy, who was embarrassingly suspended as the official Israeli spokesman after his propaganda caught up with him, invoked Abraham this Ramadan. In a post on ‘X’, he said,
“We are all destined to live side by side in peace and tolerance, the sons and daughters of Abraham.”
Coming from someone who has done everything to deflect the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, the abuse of Abraham and the “peace and tolerance” rhetoric is indicative.
British neocons are rolling out several measures to protect Israel and its image by silencing pro-Palestine activism.
In this concluding piece, we will outline how Israel’s neocon proxies are drawing on the UAE’s de-Islamisation project to implement Netanyahu’s post-Gaza plan at the policy level.
Neoconservative proxies
The neocons have been working overtime to PR for the genocidal state of Israel. Douglas Murray’s role as a hate-filled bootlicking cheerleader for Israeli mass-killing has earned him the praise of genocidaire and President of Israel Isaac Herzog. Herzog even shared a clip of Murray’s speech in which he states that “Jihadists” indoctrinate children to hate while Israelis raise their children to “love life.”
(Link)
There is a perspicuous irony here in that Herzog and Israel’s Minister of Diaspora and Combating Antisemitism, Amichai Chikli awarded Murray and thanked him for his political prostitution for Israel. Both have made genocidal statements. On October 13, Herzog collapsed the principle of distinction and declared that “unequivocally, it’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”, making all Gazans legitimate targets. Chikli was referenced by South Africa’s lawyer at the hearing in The Hague in January for considering that dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza was an option and stating we “must find ways to cause suffering in Gaza.”
So much for loving life.
(Link)
Pertinently, it is no surprise that neocons like Murray will be ensuring the delivery of Israel’s objectives here in the UK. As we showed in Part III, those within Murray’s circle are proponents of using Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام) as a means of ensuring the continued colonisation of Palestine and the destruction of Masjid Al-Aqsa.
Obstacles to this genocidal mission must be removed.
Anti-Boycott Bill
The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement is a major thorn in the side of the Zionist entity.
As such, the neocons have been working to push through the most absurdly authoritarian “economic activity of public bodies (overseas matters) bill” or “Anti-Boycott Bill”. It has been tabled by the anti-Muslim neocon Michael Gove, who is associated with Murray through the hate-financed Henry Jackson Society (HJS).
The proposed legislation not only bans local councils from spending and investing ethically, it also gags employees working in procurement from voicing opinions on boycotts. Shockingly, while Cabinet Ministers will be able to exempt countries from boycotts under the bill, the apartheid Israeli regime is the exception – it can never be boycotted. Furthermore, in defining Israel, the Bill states the legislation should apply equally to the occupied territories and Golan Heights, implying an underhanded recognition of illegal annexations.
If such a bill was ridiculous last year, it is beyond comprehension today given how Israel has done everything to demonstrate its status as a rogue, terroristic entity that is plausibly perpetrating genocide.
PREVENT
PREVENT is another tool in the arsenal of neocons to ensure the protection of Israel.
The 2014 Trojan Horse hoax is a key milestone in concretising the Prevent strategy. Gove, who was the education secretary at that time, commissioned another fellow neocon (linked through his Policy Exchange think tank) and former counter-terrorism unit head Peter Clarke to investigate the affair. The report Clarke produced used the Prevent definition of “extremism” to censure the Neturei Karta, an orthodox Jewish group, as “anti-Israel”.
Over the years there have been several cases demonstrating PREVENT’s curtailment of legitimate Islamic expression and silencing of Palestinian activism, as recognised by the 2022 People’s Review of Prevent. Even academic spaces have not been spared.
More recently, the widely boycotted “Independent” Review of Prevent by HJS-connected Zionist neocon William Shawcross attacked a PREVENT-funded Muslim for expressing pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist, and anti-Israel views (labelled “antisemitism”). The review even took issue with the use of a pro-Palestine song by rapper Lowkey for a video (Link, p.33, for more examples of anti-Zionism as “extremism”, see, p.32-33, p.36, and p.46).
Following October 7, the political screws have been tightened on pro-Palestine support and narratives. CAGE’s report “Censoring Palestine” revealed a staggering 455% increase in cases of repression of pro-Palestine support. The disproportionately high number of cases involving Muslims specifically underscores the Islamophobic nature of this censorship.
Political indoctrination in schools
In the context of schools, the pro-Palestine censorship will soon be accompanied by pro-Israel propaganda and indoctrination.
Two notable organisations are already using the interfaith/ “dialoguing” strategy to push Israel-normalisation.
The first, Solutions not Sides, is a pro-Israeli organisation which already has a presence in schools. The organisation is linked to Israeli military machinery and has historically shared funders with Friends of the IDF, illegal settlements, the Conservatives, and Labour leader Keir Starmer.
The second is the Zionist-funded Forum for Discussion of Israel and Palestine or FODIP. The Zionist front can be traced to the late Zionist Jewish philanthropist and interfaith pioneer Sigmund Sternberg, who established several Zionist organisations.
Notably, one of these organisations is the Council of Christians and Jews. This is an important detail in the context of Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis’s Interfaith Mark II Israel-normalising agenda (see Part VI). At the beginning of this year, Mirvis told the Jewish Chronicle that interfaith work post-October 7 needed a new shift “in the same way that the Council of Christians and Jews was founded in 1942”. That way is Sternberg’s way: leveraging interfaith dialogue to undermine opposition to the Zionist project within faith communities. FODIP has the same modus operandi. It is also a recipient of the Home Office’s Building a Stronger Britain Together “counter-extremism” fund. The initiative is “used by the British state to target Muslim communities for surveillance, infiltration, and to stifle Muslim political activism.”
It is worth bearing these organisations in mind when we consider that the British government is seeking to fund organisations that align with Netanyahu’s post-Gaza plan. As we noted in Part I, Netanyahu’s “deradicalization” includes brainwashing Palestinians into the Israeli narrative on October 7, which entails fabrications, exaggeration, and unproven and fabricated “Hamas rape” claims.
The UK government appears to want to satisfy this objective through a three-year-long (FY24-25 to FY26-27) indoctrination programme. As such, it is currently tendering contracts for suppliers as part of its “Tackling Antisemitism in Education” Programme to increase the understanding of “antisemitism amongst staff and learners” so that they “can identify and tackle incidents of antisemitism”. The programme would also include the rollout of a Quality Seal approval system for universities to demonstrate their commitment to tackling antisemitism. However, disconcertingly, the PREVENT-type programme will use the anti-Palestine, Israel-protecting IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Of importance is the following provision:
“The Supplier(s) will also be responsible for the development and implementation of supporting resources, including on the situation in Israel following the terrorist attacks on 7th October, which tackle mis- and disinformation, and can be used in student engagement activity.”
In other words, the British government is seeking to indoctrinate children into a foreign state’s narrative concerning October 7.
The reference to mis- and disinformation has become of key importance as is demonstrated by “The Khan Review: Threats to Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience”.
“Social Cohesion” Social Control
The march towards authoritarianism continues with Sara Khan’s “independent” report on social cohesion (henceforth the “Khan Review”), which was published in March 2024. We request the readers to bear with us as we present a more detailed analysis of the document since it is recent and has received little critical attention.
For those familiar with Khan’s previous attempts to regulate Muslims and their discourse, the content is nothing new: assume the neoconservative, War on Terror-based culturalist model that blames Islam and requires Muslims to undergo Ataturk-style cultural evisceration or French-style assimilation to bring them in line; advance “pre-emption” assumptions necessitating pre-crime interventions to regulate Muslim dissent and behaviour in the name of preventing violence; construct new-fangled terms to support this earlier intervention based on already vague terms like “Islamist” and “extremism”; portray Muslims as pitiless “intimidators” while dousing snowflake state actors and choice individuals in victimhood; and ignore the brazen neoconservative “extremisms” with which Khan has historic connections. In all this, political factors are largely ignored while “extremist ideology” is elevated as the main causal protagonist that must be the subject of deeper state intervention and repression.
The Khan Review runs the same script.
“Independent” Neocon-Style
The “independence” of the report is obviously misleading. Khan is as “independent” as a marionette on a puppet show; an intelligence asset who is wheeled out to provide brown cover to neocon-driven anti-Muslim policies (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
The pro-Israeli neoconservative framing and influence is also clear. After all, the report has been published under the auspices of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) minister Michael Gove. But this noxious influence runs deeper.
The Review positively adduces the Louise Casey Review on integration (p.127, p.128, p.134), relies on a Policy Exchange report by Damon Perry (p.83) when discussing the Batley school protests, and even references the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD).
As we have covered in detail, the Casey Review was heavily influenced by the neocon transatlantic network of hate, promulgated far-right and white supremacist narratives against Muslims, openly attacked Islamic views and practices, and solidified the academically debunked PREVENT theory.
Founded by Gove, Policy Exchange is a key think-tank that formatively shaped PREVENT, infamous for faking evidence to fearmonger against Muslims. True to this reputation, Perry frames orthodox Islam as “Islamism”, which he views solely through a securitised lens, romanticises the French response to “Islamism” (his colleagues at PX are more explicit in their support for racist French assimilationist models), and pedals misinformation about Muslims. This latter point is particularly ironic given that the Khan Review harps on about the need to regulate misinformation and disinformation (see, for example, p.93). Clearly, misinformation that demonises Muslims by anti-Islam “academics” influencing government policy is not a problem to be regulated.
ISD is also a pro-Israeli neoconservative organisation linked to Gove through the organisation’s anti-Arab racist, pro-Israeli founder, George Weidenfeld.
Then we have a range of organisations Khan consulted on the topic of Palestine and how the “conflict” is “fuelling division” (p.34). These include the following:
- The Mossad-linked pro-Israeli Community Security Trust (CST) is known to push anti-Muslim counter-extremism policies and target Muslims with the “Islamist” label. It is also connected to the controversial Jerusalem-based neoconservative organisation NGO Monitor. CST is currently pushing the police to reduce pro-Palestine protests in central London.
- Tell MAMA is a government project developed with involvement from CST by Fiyaz Mughal’s Faith Matters, which has secretly received counter-extremism funding. Mughal has promoted Islamophobic narratives.
- Muslims Against Antisemitism is also founded by Mughal and supports the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
- Solutions Not Sides
- FODIP
The Review even references Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), run by chief exec Gideon Falter. The CAA has been funded by the UK partner of the Jewish National Fund (of which Falter is vice-chair), Israel’s quasi-governmental land-grabbing settler colonial agency. The group has a history of conflating legitimate protests with antisemitism. Following the genocidal Israeli assault on Gaza, it has sought a ban on pro-Palestine protests.
Recently, in what appears to be an attempt to demonstrate that London had become a no-go zone for Jews and justify a ban on marches, Falter misled the media concerning an incident in which a police officer described him as “openly Jewish”. Falter has attracted criticism from establishment officials and journalists including the Met Police Chief Superintendent Dal Babu. Discrediting Falter, Babu said he would have arrested him (for details, see here).
At the time of writing, there is an indication that this ostensible set-up entails foreign interference. The person with Falter at the time of the incident is from the security firm SQR Group, which is run by two former Mossad agents. The same individual has guarded Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Hotovely. (More here and here).
Khan and Gove’s department certainly have a strange definition of independence.
Deepening Pre-crime
Per script, the Khan Review deepens pre-crime intervention:
“Conversely, the current winds of extremism, polarisation and democratic disruption combined with social and economic issues may cause even more unrest. Social unrest and the erosion of democratic freedoms do not happen overnight, and acting to mitigate against such threats through early intervention is critical. Prevention is far more effective than cure, and prevention comes in the form of long-term work to build cohesion and resilience over time, as well as deploying pre-emptive interventions to early warning signs.”
While “social and economic issues” such as housing and deprivation get a tokenistic mention, Khan sidesteps examining these crucial factors (p.23, p.147), thus avoiding scrutiny of state policies. Instead, she reframes political and economic considerations as “risk factors”, shifting the buck to citizens rather than the political elite responsible, thereby justifying more invasive mind control projects:
“Extremism does not occur in isolation – instead it appears and takes root in conducive environments and contexts. Specific social, political, economic and historical factors within a local area can either act as ‘risk factors’ – which can make an area more susceptible to extremism.”
Of course, this is all academically discredited nonsense.
The Review uses the PREVENT-based definition of extremism as well as Khan’s “hateful extremism” definition and effectively presumes them to be objective for the purposes of the Review. It further positively cites the use of PREVENT, the authoritarian 2015 Counter Extremism Strategy (p.103-104), and the Building a Stronger Britain Together initiative (p.132), which the British state has used to target Muslim communities for surveillance, infiltration, and to stifle Muslim political activism.
The review even regurgitates the “us and them” PREVENT theory, which problematises group identities:
“While there is a natural and healthy tendency to form group identities, when social identities start to promote hostile ‘us vs. them’ narratives, active hatred of the other, and seek to deny the rights of fellow citizens, it can cause significant fragmentation, leading to an erosion of social cohesion.”
Of course, using terms like “Islamist” and “extremist” to excommunicate whole sections of Muslims is not promoting an “us and them” narrative at all. Nor is the fact that Zionist lobbies in the UK are supporting the actions of an apartheid, racist colonial state plausibly engaged in genocide.
In any case, “extremism” is a subjective, meaningless term as even acknowledged by the government in court. Furthermore, academic scrutiny over the years has established that precrime interventions are baseless. There is no sound evidence that PREVENT-based interventions work, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the notion of “extremism” targets legitimate political and religious expression. The government’s underpinning basis for precrime is thoroughly flawed. And there is no academic support for the claim that ideology (i.e., “extremism”) causes political violence. Moreover, these definitions have been directly undermined by Gove’s admission that they are imprecise (his new definition is meant to be “more precise”) demonstrating the flaccid nature of the punitive discourse.
Undeterred by all this, Khan compounds “extremism” with more academically unsupported enabling “conditions”.
“Conditions for Extremism”
The conditions that enable “extremism”, i.e., the lack of social cohesion, is the focus of Khan’s review. This linkage between purported social cohesion and extremism is hardly new. In his 2016 speech, David Cameron highlighted the need to address the “conditions of extremism” declaring that he would “come down hard on those who create the conditions for that narrative to flourish.” The Casey Review reinforced the same discredited “conveyor-belt” theory of radicalisation. Khan is merely regurgitating the same albeit wrapped in some misleading academic references.
Khan states,
“A lack of belonging, self‑worth, sense of equity and democratic participation in communities facing hardships can also create the conditions where extremist narratives take hold, which can be further harmful to the economy. Research shows that extremist messaging appeals strongest to those with limited opportunities or those more marginalised within their surrounding society.”
Here’s the thing, we checked the citations Khan uses to support the elitist claim about “extremist messaging” (p.39, Fn.79). The first leads to a DLUHC paper that has no reference to “extremist messaging”. The second is an academic paper which suggests that engagement with neighbours and people outside the neighbourhood appears to be good for people’s health. Absolutely nowhere in the paper is there a reference to “extremist messaging” appealing to those with “limited opportunities”.
If the hypothesis that ideology causes political violence is unsubstantiated, then there is certainly no basis for the view that particular social conditions cause “extremism”. This is understandable given the meaninglessness of the term “extremism”.
In fact, even the report’s assertions about the positive effects of social cohesion are not causative according to the academic she cites.[1] Inferring the opposite – that a breakdown of social cohesion results in “extremism” – to then justify policies is far more tentative.
Nevertheless, Khan confidently declares, that extremism “takes root in conducive environments” and that social, economic, and historical factors act as “risk factors” that influence extremism susceptibility. Khan even claims absurdly that “perceptions of loss of effective control, feelings of insignificance, fear” contribute to “extremism‑enabling places” which “make individuals more prone to” extremism (p.90).
In other words, if you feel scared, you may be a potential terrorist.
Freedom-restricting harassment
Khan has a history of fronting new repressive terms to target Muslims. Per form, and adding yet a further layer of vagueness is Khan’s suppressive category of freedom-restricting harassment or FRH (p.9):
“The Reviewer calls this freedom-restricting harassment (FRH), defined as when people experience or witness threatening, intimidatory or abusive harassment online and/or offline which is intended to make people or institutions censor or self-censor out of fear. This may or may not be part of a persistent pattern of behaviour.”
Now, most of the terms (threat, intimidation, harassment) have a basis in law. In this sense, there is nothing new here. However, beyond this, the definition introduces multiple layers of ambiguity and subjectivity. There is a difference between intimidation and harassment established through a judicial process and what people may “witness” or think they have witnessed. What a person may consider intimidation may be a partial view of the facts of the case.
A good example of this is the case of Sarah Hewitt Clarkson, whom Khan authoritatively references in the Khan Review. As we exposed in 2015 and 2019, Hewitt has a history of making unsubstantiated claims about Muslim “intimidation” (p.85).
The Report recognises that “drawing a line between harmful censorship and harmless censorship is particularly challenging” (p.47), but then proceeds to use it without providing an adequate, legally-testable distinction. The Review bemoans a “pile-on culture” as an example of FRH (p.63), but does not explain why this would be problematic, given democratic activity inherently involves a mobilisation of masses. She also fails to identify the threshold at which point a “pile-on” would amount to FRH.
All this is worsened by Khan’s claim that “extremists” – that subjective, nebulous term – employ FRH to impact freedoms (p.63).
FRH poll
The slippery slope of authoritarianism is enveloped by more ambiguity with the Review’s use of the “FRH Omnibus Poll”. The Report uses a survey to assess the widespread nature of FRH and headlines the figure that 85% of the public believe FRH currently occurs in the UK, with 44% stating they have witnessed it.
The definition for the poll omits intention from the determination of FRH (see p.46, fn.111).[2] This modification is interesting because Khan keenly emphasises that the “victim” in the Review’s Batley case study (a white non-Muslim teacher who caused distress to Muslim pupils) did not intend to cause offence, circumscribing him from the purview of Khan’s FRH. We will return to this case below.
Significantly, in assessing FRH’s permeation in society, Khan happily eschews intention, casting the net wider. This strategic move, coupled with the substitution of judicially determined harassment with a multitude of subjective public perceptions considerably expands the possible types of incidents. When this definitional porosity is combined with the issue of bias (those with a vested interest in or affected by “harassment” are more inclined to participate in the survey, and the fact that the survey was conducted in the first week following October 7), the inflated numbers are hardly surprising.
All this arbitrariness, nebulousness, and subjectivity, make for a framework that, like PREVENT, enables the demonisation of the Muslim minority.
Once again, the Khan Review is evidence against itself.
Batley Grammar School Case
The 2021 Batley Grammar School case concerns a non-Muslim white RS teacher showing a caricature of the Prophet ﷺ depicted with a bomb in a turban to Muslim pupils at a school. The children were distressed by this, and local Muslims attempted to engage the school. Following disengagement, the parents then peacefully protested outside the school. The school apologised. An inquiry by the Trust which ran the school found that the offending material did not need to be shown. The teacher reportedly went into hiding following anonymous threats.
Khan uses the case as an example of FRH. However, Khan only succeeds in demonstrating how agenda-driven her account, and more widely her Review, is.
Prejudged review
An impartial assessment of any issues requires an examination of all parties. However, Sara Khan’s treatment of the Batley Grammar School follows the common neoconservative framing of “blasphemy”, intimidation, and extremism. This view is evident in a Policy Exchange report, which Khan cites in her Review and is authored by the anti-Islam Perry and forwarded by HJS-linked Nadhim Zahawi, as well as William Shawcross’s review of PREVENT.
Furthermore, notwithstanding her sycophantic bias outlined earlier, Khan prejudged the Batley incident as “horrifying” and dismissed the protesters weeks into the affair. As such, it appears the Review’s approach to this case is entirely thesis-driven – the narrative is made to prove what she and her neoconservative masters had outlined three ago.
For example, Khan appears to force the involvement of “Islamists” by claiming the affair was “hijacked” by “Islamists” and the “far-right”, bringing the case into counter-extremism framing. The link cited (p.71, Fn.184) makes no reference to “Islamists”, and instead suggests that the Department for Education had inflamed tensions around the incident.
The supporting cases Khan sews into her Batley study are also notable. For example, she cites Sara Hewitt Clarkson’s school in Birmingham to support the claim that protests had “generated significant fear” (p.77, fn.189, p.85). However, as we noted earlier Hewitt Clarkson – a key beneficiary of the Trojan Horse affair – has a habit of stoking anti-Muslim hysteria in the community through unsubstantiated accusations of “intimidation”.
However, nowhere is this slanted view more brazenly demonstrated than in the way Khan, under the guise of a “victim-centred” narrative, unquestioningly adopts the claims of the teacher (a trend reminiscent of the Trojan Horse scandal). This take is ironic given that Khan has (hypocritically) dismissed Muslim grievances as perpetuating “victimhood narratives” in the past. There are no such concerns in the case of the teacher, whose experiences are affirmed without question.
Various institutional actors such as the police and the local council are engaged and their responses to the incident juxtaposed with the teacher’s view. Khan invariably supports the teacher. If only Muslim teachers were afforded such affirming treatment during the Trojan Horse affair in the face of allegations from mainly white non-Muslim teachers!
Furthermore, Khan removes the parents and the numerous local Muslim community institutions from consideration. This omission is by design (p.45):
“We have not researched the drivers of FRH. There will be a multitude of motivations, ideological or otherwise, possible socio‑economic factors and perceived or real grievances that perpetrators believe justifies their actions. This requires further research.”
This feature of the review structurally skews Khan’s analysis and conclusions. We present two examples.
The first relates to intent.
Khan is quick to accept that “it was definitively not the RS teacher’s intention to cause offence, create division or for any other malicious reason” (p.80). In contrast, despite not considering the view of the children and parents or their motivations, she predetermines their “demands” as “unreasonable” (p.86).
The second concerns the disparity in the way Khan deals with Muslim pupils.
While an adult male teacher is considered a victim, no such compassion is afforded to 13-year-old Muslim pupils who were subjected to grossly offensive Islamophobic imagery. Children should be afforded particular safeguarding consideration, especially given that a teacher is in a position of influence and power. The independent review by the Academy Trust overseeing the school suggests the image caused “distress” to the children as well as parents. As such the teacher’s actions could be construed as abusive for the pupils.
However, Khan states that protecting Muslim pupils from what is effectively Islamophobia is not a concern (p.80):
“The very nature of challenging and controversial topics will result in some finding such discussion and material offensive. Protecting pupils from offense (sic), which is often subjective, should not be the priority.”
The image is hateful iconography. It depicts the central-most revered figure in the lives of Muslims with a bomb, reinforcing negative, anti-Muslim, War on Terror stereotypes. The implication is that terrorism is inherent to Muslims and therefore a threat. These imagery and stereotypes are advocated by far-right, neoconservative “counter-Jihadist” hatemongers – a context which Khan conveniently neglects, which is understandable given she is connected to these movements. This hate permeates the political establishment, with more than half of Tory members saying Islam is a “threat to the British way of life” and the media, with Muslims more commonly associated with terrorism than non-Muslims. Just recently, a video appeared online of a British white man abusing Muslim women saying “You bomb, you f****ing Muslim c**ts” – sadly one of many such incidents.
This worrying trend was also the concern local Imams conveyed in their statements, which is of course irrelevant since Khan has already written off their concerns as “unreasonable” (p.86).
What would be the reaction if a teacher showed images of Jews portrayed as bloodsuckers or interacting with some type of squid, or presented Holocaust images of dead bodies, mass graves, or Nazi-glamorising images to a classroom full of young Jewish children in the name of free speech and to teach a lesson about censorship? The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust advises against risking “upsetting children or offending their parents” with Holocaust imagery. Would Khan offer the same wise counsel? Would Khan tell British Jews that their offence is “subjective”, and that protecting Jewish children from offense should not be the priority?
We can anticipate Khan’s response, given her disregard for the state-sponsored censorship and blasphemy rule in schools through government plans to promote the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The entire incident would rightly be deemed insensitive. The notion of free speech would not even enter the discussion as a moral outrage would ensue.
There is an obvious double standard which we can trace to neocons. While pro-Israel activists can even inhibit criticisms of Israel through antisemitism, Muslims cannot invoke Islamophobia since neocons, like William Shawcross in his review of PREVENT, have characterised it as “blasphemy by the backdoor”. Khan perpetuates the same neocon assumption.
It is worth noting that Khan’s approach to the pupils is not one that was shared by the independent review by the Academy Trust overseeing the Batley school. Khan uses the review to repeatedly emphasise that the teacher did not have malintent (p.80). However, the review also acknowledged that the image caused offence and distress to the students. It also references the Department for Education guidance on the need to balance materials with the promotion of “respect and tolerance” before concluding that the materials in question did not need to be used to deliver the learning outcomes.
The implication, as noted by the academics responding to the Shawcross Review of Prevent (see here, p.51), is that the conduct of the teacher did not meet the Teachers’ Standards guidelines as outlined by the government.
Like the Shawcross Review, the Khan Review provides no weight to all this.
Demonising Muslim protests and direct action
Throughout the Review, Khan emphasises the importance of rights. However, there is a disparity in the way Khan views the exercise of these rights. For example, Khan sees nothing wrong with subjecting Muslim children to grossly offensive Islamophobic imagery – Muslim children must learn to adapt to this abuse. Conversely, she does have a problem with parents protesting (p.82):
“Those parents who did have concerns but chose not to protest or engage in threatening behaviour demonstrated the importance of engaging with the school in a respectful way and in the spirit of mutual dialogue.”
Protests often occur when engagement breaks down (this appears to be the case with the teacher).
In any case, Khan demonises protesting by conflating or mixing it with threats, disrespect, and hostility (p.85). She characterises them with violent imagery such as “eruption” (p.76). It all gives the impression that protesting is a right that should not be exercised, setting up the narrative for a proposal to limit protests near schools.
However, there is a clear distinction between threats and peaceful protesting. The Review records the fact that the police did not view the protests as a “difficult incident” and were positive overall with no offences or violence committed (p.76). Yet Khan insists on conflating threats, which the police confirmed were made by “known persons by unknown means” with protesting parents.
In her analysis Khan states that the “threat of any potential violence was reduced significantly as the RS teacher left Batley almost immediately on the first day of protests” (p.77). However, this presumes that the protesting parents were making anonymous threats online, which of course is unproven and a colossal unsubstantiated conflation.
Investigation into threats to life, regardless of the motivation should be investigated. However, there is no basis to conflate these threats with protestors, who, according to the Review’s own record of the police’s statements, remained peaceful.
The Batley case is not the exception in Khan’s treatment of protests. The Review also takes aim at “the direct action by pro‑Palestine groups against Elbit Systems Ltd”, stating it fuels tensions – an outrageous characterisation that ignores the criminal nature of arming the racist apartheid state of Israel. This particular reference hints at the broader pro-Israel agenda to shut down pro-Palestine protests.
The systematic bias and questionable use of evidence means Khan’s “investigation” into the Batley case has little objective value besides buttressing predetermined authoritarian proposals.
Selective, discriminatory focus
The arbitrariness and vagueness in the Khan Review’s framework make it ripe for selective discriminatory treatment and political weaponization against minorities.
“Islamist” vs Far-right
Apart from a few tokenistic examples of the far-right and obscure references to “far-right actors”, which is a common government tactic to show counter-terrorism/extremism measures are not discriminatory, the report’s focus of its major examples remains Muslims and “Islamism”. In fact, Muslims get a dedicated chapter with the Batley case. But even beyond this, how the two groups are treated demonstrates discriminatory bias against Muslims.
As we saw in the Batley case, the protestors are painted as making “unreasonable demands” (p.86). In contrast, Khan normalises far-right concerns (p.91):
“Immigration and asylum policy is a legitimate yet contested democratic and political issue. While the right to protest is protected, there is an extremism and social cohesion concern when such protests lead to harassment, intimidation and violence in a local area. This includes attacks on asylum seekers and the police.”
For Khan, the far-right have “normal” concerns, but attacking people is a red line. With respect to Muslims, the line is drawn at their concerns, framed as unacceptable, and their choice to protest is disrespectful, inherently intimidatory, and hostile.
This differential treatment is, again, symptomatic of neocons such as Robin Simcox, the Commissioner for Countering Extremism at the Home Office. Academics have identified this disparity between “Islamist” and far-right motivations as a discriminatory feature of PREVENT (see People’s Review of Prevent, p.38).
Omissions – Zionism-motivated censorship and intimidation
Aside from “Islamist” and far-right “extremisms” (p.147) “Sikh fundamentalists” are also targeted in the report (p.9, p.65).
Again, this appears to be by design. Muslims are a pro-Israel neocon target in the West due to their support for Palestine (hence neocon conspiracy theories such as Eurabia and the Great Replacement theory). Sikhs seeking self-determination in South Asia are the target of Modi’s Hindutva regime.
And both regimes have favourable ties with the British government.
We have documented in detail how pro-Israeli neocon and Hindutva lobbies in the West are aligned both ideologically and politically against Muslims and are actively promoting anti-Sikh/anti-Muslim Indian/Israeli interests. Consequently, it is unsurprising to observe that there is absolutely no explicit mention of Zionist and Hindutva ideological “extremisms” (to use more specific terminology, racist fascisms) threatening social cohesion.
There are several examples of Zionist intimidation and bullying.
The report highlights “horrific abuse our politicians have endured” (p.9). However, Khan ignores one of the more high-profile cases involving Zionist targeting of politicians. In 2017, Al-Jazeera exposed Shai Masot, disgraced former Israeli navy captain and former senior political officer at the Israeli embassy, for being involved in activities which comprehensively undermined Britain’s democracy. He was caught plotting with Maria Strizzolo (former chief of staff to Robert Halfon MP), to “take down” MPs that were sympathetic to Palestinians. As we detailed at the time, this controversial culture of “taking down” pro-Palestinian activists ranging from independent individuals to MPs extends from Israel through to multiple Zionist “grassroot” organisations.
There is also the concerted effort to “censor” free speech on the criticism of Israel, costing people their jobs.
For example, pro-Israel lobbies such as the Board of Deputies of Jews and the Community Security Trust have been pressuring the Guardian over Steve Bell’s Israel-criticising cartoons for some time. Other pro-Israel lobby groups (such as CAMERA (also here)) have “piled on” Bell under the guise of “antisemitic tropes”. As a result, The Guardian has pulled Bell’s cartoons from circulation in the past. Following October 7 2023, the Guardian sacked him for creating a cartoon of Netanyahu. This ordeal has had a “devastating” impact on Bell, despite him having no intention to cause antisemitic offence.
As Jonathan Cook has noted previously, such censorship is a trend when it comes to Israel. Bell’s ordeal should be a major case of censorious Zionist harassment under Khan’s framework. However, it remains noticeable only by its absence.
A further example of pro-Israel harassment and bullying is the case of Melika Gorgianeh. On 20 November 2023, Gorgianeh appeared on BBC’s “University Challenge” with a blue octopus mascot. Despite being in a team of four, the episode filmed months earlier, and the jacket worn by Ms Gorgianeh on the show being navy blue, orange, pink and green, Baroness Jacqueline Foster took to ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) to single Ms Gorgianeh out as wearing the colours of the Palestinian flag and being responsible for the Team mascot, which Foster described as being the most “disgusting antisemitic symbols”. She called for Ms Gorgianeh to be “expelled” by her university and “arrested” by the police. She also tagged the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Ofcom, the BBC, and Oxford University to her post.
In her statement, Gorgianeh said Forster’s accusations had “a profound and deeply damaging impact” on her life. She further added that Foster’s accusations “led to me receiving death threats and to my mental health deteriorating”.
Forster had apologised by November 2023. Why is this blatant pro-Israel abuse and intimidation not mentioned by Khan? Will Khan chastise various institutions for not properly supporting the mental state of Gorgianeh? Will there be a review of the police for not investigating the death threats adequately? Given the Israeli genocidal context, there was a real risk of returning dual-national IDF fighters attacking Gorgianeh. In the US, pro-Palestinian activists were doused in Israel-developed “skunk water” by IDF soldiers.
We have a further high-profile example in the BBC’s Apprentice contestant and general practitioner Dr Asif Manaf. Against the backdrop of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Manaf made remarks critical of Zionism. He was subsequently “piled on” by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and media outlets including Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News, and the Jewish News Syndicate for “antisemitic comments”. The discredited Campaign Against Antisemitism called on the General Medical Council to strike off Dr Munaf from the medical register after which he was suspended pending investigation.
A final example worth considering is the Zionist persecution of Prof David Miller for his beliefs. The case has all the ingredients to be a “social cohesion” and censorious “blasphemy” concern for Khan.
After delivering a lecture on Zionism as a driving factor of Islamophobia, Prof Miller was “targeted by groups and individuals who opposed his research. In particular, many pro-Zionist/Israeli groups alleged that his views were anti-Semitic and called for him to be removed from his position at the University of Bristol”. He became a victim of a vicious smear campaign alleging that he had made antisemitic comments, before being dismissed from his post. In this sense, the “antisemitism” framing operated as a pro-Israel blasphemy code.
Following Prof Miller’s dismissal, an online petition was set up by a group of eminent scholars to support his case, gaining 40,000 signatures. They expressed concerns about the “chilling effect the dismissal has on academic freedom and have called for him to be reinstated”. Miller won his case in February 2024.
This type of “blasphemy” where Israel is satirised and criticised is exempt from Khan’s review.
Khan also ignores the neocons in her analysis. Much can be said here in the way Gove’s fellow Douglas Murray has been spouting anti-Muslim and anti-Palestine hatred over the years. However, the case of the marches on Remembrance Day last year is too blatant to ignore.
Last year, Murray explicitly incited mobs by falsely stating that “Hamas supporters” were planning to “defame” and “desecrate” the war dead and the Cenotaph. Declaring this a “tipping point” he called on the “people of Britain” to “come out” and “stop these Barbarians”. For any reasonable person, this looked like a violent call for mobs to descend on the pro-Palestine march.
Tommy Robinson, whom Douglas Murray has repeatedly praised, soon after appeared on social media riling up his followers. On the day of the march, there were no pro-Palestine marchers near the Cenotaph. Rather, hordes of far-right activists pushed past the police perimeter, injuring nine officers. Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist called their “extreme violence” towards the police “extraordinary and deeply concerning”. He added, “A week of intense debate about protest and policing” helped “increase community tensions”.
While Suella Braverman was sacked for stoking tensions, Murray remains unaccountable for his role. And blind-eyed by Khan.
Omissions – the rise of Hindutva
The absence of Hindutva fascism in the UK from the report is similarly scandalous.
(For a detailed view of the Hindutva threat, see here, here, and our detailed report on a UK Hindutva outfit, Vichaar Manthan, here).
Hindutva organisations pose a globalised threat. The Hindutva factor was undeniable in the 2022 Leicester unrest which was sparked by several cases of Muslims being attacked and their businesses targeted. During the unrest, British Hindus were seen defending and supporting the Indian fascist group RSS. When 200 Hindu men marched through a Muslim-majority area of east Leicester, they chanted “Jai Shri Ram” – a murder cry which, as Hindu journalists and academics have noted (and here), has become emblematic of Hindutva mobs that attack, lynch, and destroy Muslims and Muslim property in India, force Muslims to utter the chant and threaten Muslim women with rape if they refuse. Indian writers have even identified the Leicester unrest as an RSS “trial balloon,” which the RSS will attempt to replicate elsewhere.
Claude Webb MP noted that “Thuggery, political right-wing nationalism from abroad, far-right fascism and racism are key features of the disorder.” And the Mayor of Leicester, Peter Soulsby, also acknowledged that “a lot of things emerged in Leicester which have roots in the Indian subcontinent,” before pinpointing Hindutva ideology.
Hindutva intimidation has continued through celebrations of violently anti-Muslim events, such as the razing of Babri Mosque. This sadistic glorification of violent hate and mockery is ongoing.
In January, a Hindutva march took place through Leicester streets to celebrate the destruction of the Babri Mosque and the building of a temple in its place. Earlier this month Hindutva activists chanted among other racist statements, “Ayodhya [i.e., Babri Mosque] is just a glimpse, Kashi and Mathura mosques remain to be conquered.”
There are more direct threats to British citizens from the Hindutva regime in India.
A recent report highlighted how a British Sikh activist is living in fear since the Hindutva regime put him on a “hit list”. This threat is all the more disturbing given Canada accused the regime of killing a Canadian-Sikh activist on Canadian soil.
Additionally, in the Review, Khan has a problem with Muslim parents engaging schools to collaboratively help shape the syllabus, something Department for Education guidelines encourage (p.85). However, there is pin-drop silence over fascist Hindutva organisations influencing education in the UK, including local councils.
There are more examples we can outline. But the abovementioned cases are major flashpoint events triggered by pro-Israel, neocon, and Hindutva groups and actors. All are curiously absent from Khan’s analysis and proposals.
The cacophony of Hindutva thuggery, Zionist “blasphemy,” and intimidation does not twang Khan’s social cohesion concerns.
More Muslim-Targeting Surveillance
A faltering domestic economy, military pursuits abroad, support for rogue states like Israel, and the far-right demagoguery perpetuated by neocons in politics and media are macro factors that demand urgent attention. Yet, instead of addressing these issues, neocons like Gove want to pass the buck onto the people and ensure we are all monitored and regulated.
Hence, driven by her skewed, ideologically-driven analysis, Khan advocates for thought-controlling measures under the guise of promoting social cohesion.
Khan’s notion of social cohesion embeds thought-policing at its very foundation. For Khan, the “liberalisation in moral attitudes” and becoming “more socially liberal” effectively means more social cohesion (p.110). This assumption is questionable.
Khan’s Review, as we have demonstrated above, serves as evidence that when neocons and their liberal allies embrace this political ideology, it comes at the expense of Muslims. Muslims have borne the brunt of liberal tolerance, whether through democracy bombs and drone strikes on the Muslim world or the so-called “tolerance” – or coercion – Muslims face through PREVENT and counter-terrorism policing, or even when Muslim children simply try to pray for five minutes at school over the lunch break.
The neo-colonial, “muscular liberal” assumption is also troubling for implying that orthodox religious beliefs, whether Islamic, Jewish, or Christian, which conflict with liberalism contribute to extremism and are therefore potentially terroristic.
For Muslims in particular, this means surveillance.
The Review calls for the establishment of another waste of taxpayers’ money in the form of the “Office for Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience (OSCDR).” Its function would be to gather intelligence on communities through its “analytical and assessment” capability. The data gathered would then inform the government on policy areas that include Levelling Up (i.e., local communities), “counter-extremism”, and Britain’s counter-terrorism strategy CONTEST (p.15). The OSCDR would also monitor society and identify perpetrators of its vaguely constructed, selectively applied FRH category (p.16). The intelligence-gathering function is more explicitly slipped into the report in relation to local councils, where it is wrapped under the rhetoric of protecting social cohesion. In highlighting why local authorities are an obstacle to the policy Khan states (p.131):
“Such relationships not only improve trust of local government, they also provide important and necessary local intelligence to help pick up, prevent and better respond to early tensions and incidents of tension, in partnership with civil society organisations and other local partners. This level of engagement or in-depth understanding of the views, beliefs,grievances and sense of belonging of the local population they serve does not exist in all local authorities. This understanding is particularly poor in relation to the extensive intra-diversity that exists within ethnic and faith-based minority groups in their local area where too often there exists outdated notions of engagement with self-appointed and self-representative ‘community leaders’.”
The Review also proposes that the government develops a plan to indoctrinate society with state-sanctioned acceptable ideas in a discriminatory way (p.17):
“Build resilience in local communities against extremist ideologies and narratives, including conspiracy theories and disinformation.”
“Engage people using an audience segmentation approach to help deliver bespoke interventions and programmes to different audiences and ensure a more targeted approach. This includes those who are sympathetic to extremist narratives”.
No doubt the reference to conspiracy theories and disinformation will help enforce Netanyahu’s narrative on October 7.
The Review even suggests that the police force should engage in thought policing. According to Khan, each force should have an officer who has “a comprehensive understanding of apostate and intra-faith hatred, and the theological narratives employed by perpetrators that incite hatred and cause harassment” (p.19).
The Muslim experience of PREVENT, which has targeted Islamic signifiers and practices, means this measure will operate in a way that perpetuates discriminatory stigmatisation against the Muslim minority. Under the measures, officers are expected to approach Muslims with preconceived notions, rather than relying on the facts of the case.
Given the brazen pro-Israel, anti-Muslim bias in the Review, it is unlikely these forces will be trained in intra-Jewish beliefs, Zionist “blasphemy” codes, or the maltreatment of pro-Palestine Jewish groups. Should the police understand Zionism, the threat it produces, and how intra-Jewish issues can spill onto to streets? There are certainly examples that are a cause for concern.
Take the “freedom-restricting” example of Na’amod. In January, the anti-Israeli occupation group was prevented by the Zionist Jewish group CST (according to the police) from joining the march.
(Link)
In the same month, an orthodox Jewish man was attacked by a Zionist for holding a Palestine flag.
(Link)
Other pro-Palestine Jews are marginalised by Zionist organisations such as the CST (see also here). In one shocking example from the US, a Zionist woman tells pro-Palestine Jewish protestors that they should be “put in gas chambers” and that “Hitler made a mistake”.
It is also unlikely this recommendation will translate into training materials about the fascist Hindutva ideology, the political manipulation and abuse of Dalits, and how Hindutva fascists are obscuring the fight for caste equality as “anti-Hindu” among the South Asian diaspora.
Gove’s new “extremism” definition
These measures are certainly not new. The surveillance and cognitive assimilation of Muslims has been the pattern of PREVENT since its inception. Today, it is institutionalised at the public body level.
The neocons want to go beyond this social level and shift the regulation of thought closer into the private sphere of society. The Khan Review deepens PREVENT’s authoritarian processes and seeks to institutionalise them in a like manner under the guise of disinformation, misinformation, and “FRH”. Indeed, like PREVENT, Khan calls on the government to legislate for a statutory duty on social cohesion if no progress on her plan is made (p.16).
This suppression serves foreign interests. If the influence and bias of the Review do not make this apparent, then Michael Gove, who oversaw its publication, has certainly made it clear.
Gove announced his Sara Khan- and Shawcross Review-informed “extremism” definition as a step towards increasing social cohesion. He relies specifically on the Shawcross Review to stress the “importance of placing greater emphasis on tackling ideology” – a claim that, as we have seen, has no academic support.
For Gove, the renewed concern for social cohesion and extremism is rooted in a response to “increased extremist threat since October 7 terror attacks in Israel.” While an ostensible reading gives the impression of a response to a heightened threat post-October 7, the underlying message is unmistakable: the protection of Israel and its genocidal stampede, which pose the real threat to Britain and global stability.
Gove claims that the new definition of “extremism” is meant to be “more precise”. This is untrue. It merely rehashes the current definition of “extremism”, wraps it up in human rights rhetoric, and enables enough elbow room to continue the assault on Muslims.
The definition outlines three aims.
Aim two, explained as “Advocating that the UK’s parliamentary democracy and democratic values and rights are not compatible with their ideology”, ensures a depoliticised Islam which also targets the Islamic belief concerning the Khilafah. The third aim – the creation of a permissive environment – is where the Khan Review fits in. It is here that, for example, Muslims protesting, framed as “threatening”, becomes conditions for “extremism” and therefore “extremist”. And it is here where the rhetoric of “blasphemy” will be used to police the right of Muslims to define the boundaries of Islamic belief.
When we observe the government’s intent to normalise the IHRA definition of antisemitism, we can also anticipate how criticism of Israel will quickly fall within the purview of conditions that lead to extremism (and therefore “extremist”) under the third aim.
Gove’s Parliamentary statement on 14 March 2024 supplementing the publication of the new “extremism” definition reinforces these twin concerns.
In the statement, Gove emphasises Israel as the rationale for “enhancing” counter-extremism and “community cohesion”. He then briefly highlights a couple of neo-Nazi groups before singling out mainstream Muslim groups like CAGE, Mend, and the Muslim Association of Britain as “Islamist” threats that are “divisive forces within Muslim communities and cause real harm to them.” Gove has yet to accept the challenge of these Muslim organisations to repeat his potentially defamatory statements outside of Parliament.
Even more damningly for Gove and his pro-Israel neocon ilk, over 400 imams and Islamic scholars rubbished Gove’s extremism definition and his attack on Muslim organisations. They highlight his history of anti-Muslim stances, his Islamophobic/pro-Israeli connections, and his Zionist agenda. These scholars also urge Muslims to support the organisations, thwarting Gove’s divisive, “divide and conquer”, “good Muslim”/“bad Muslim” politics.
While Gove helpfully assisted Muslims to understand they are targeted under his new “extremism” definition, he also clarified who was exempt.
When asked whether a Tory donor’s call for Dianne Abbott MP to be “shot” would be considered “extremist”, he said he deserves “Christian forgiveness”. Apparently, rich white people wanting black politicians shot dead is not “extremism” and they are entitled to “Christian forgiveness”. But Muslim organisations defending the rights of Muslims though, well, they are “extremists” and deserve a Crusader Inquisition.
Well, that settles it then.
Circling back to the UAE
Khan’s “Office for Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience” will aid in this repressive, discriminatory process.
If you swap “social cohesion” for “coexistence” then the “Office for Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience” very much sounds like the UAE’s autocratic “Ministry of Tolerance and Peace”, which has driven the UAE’s CVE programme and the Abrahamic Family House interfaith project. The coercive notion of “social cohesion” is effectively UAE’s idea of “peace”, where people are forced into a state-defined idea of a nation that benefits Israel while clamping down on dissenting, Islamic, and anti-Israel ideas.
There is a deeper parallel here than first meets the eye.
Gove’s statement in Parliament also announced the formation of a “new counter-extremism centre of excellence as a world-leading authority on best practice, data and research.” The centre will provide “counter-extremism assessment and analytical functions and capabilities”.
Neocons already have a model to base their new centre on. British neocons, along with their US counterparts, have been cultivating counter-extremism efforts in the UAE. These same initiatives have birthed the Abrahamic Family House and the abuse of the Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام) to further normalisation efforts.
As we highlighted in Part II of this series, the Abu Dhabi-based Hedayah, otherwise known as the International Center of Excellence for Countering Violent Extremism, was born from the Global Counterterrorism Forum on Countering Violent Extremism spearheaded by the UK and UAE. Hedayah is “a front for the UAE government which has made a significant priority of promoting anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe and the US” (link, p.51). It is influenced by the neoconservative, pro-Israel Institute for Strategic Dialogue and works closely with the Washington DC-based neocon think-tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). The FDD’s positions closely track “those of the Likud party and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” concerning Palestine. Notably, in 2017, hacked emails of the Arab neocon architect of the Abraham Accords and UAE ambassador to the US, Yousef Al Otaiba – the same Otaiba who is at war with Islam – showed that the UAE was discussing Iran and broader policies including, “political, economic, military, intelligence, and cyber tools” with the FDD. All this shows that the development of the UAE centre is intertwined with the most perverse anti-Muslim, pro-Israeli neocons.
The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) has also been courting British involvement in the UAE’s CVE efforts. In 2018, the hate-financed think-tank published a report authored by its researcher and Saudi/UAE regime de-Islamisation propagandist Najah al-Otaibi (she has also worked for the equally toxic Tony Blair Centre for Global Change). Pertinently, recognising that the UK (and the US) were the “main providers” or “resources to combat extremism”, the report urged increased British involvement in counter-extremism efforts and proposed Sara Khan “as an excellent choice” to facilitate this connection. The report positively highlighted “interfaith” efforts as a counter-extremism mechanism and promoted Hedayah as a model to bolster counter-extremism efforts. And just how Gove’s Khan Review and “extremism” definition operationalise their de-Islamisation process, the HJS report recommended that the UK develops a “moderate” Islam that “integrates liberal values”.
In the same year, at the end of his time as Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson worked with Hedayah.
Leading up to Gove’s announcement of the new “extremism” definition, the UAE propaganda outlet National News published a most illuminating article. For the outlet, it was clear that the counter-extremism definition targeting Muslim organisations was “prompted” by “the Gaza-Israel protests”.
The report highlighted a significant suggestion by Alan Mendoza, founder and executive director of HJS. He proposed that the UAE’s model, with Hedayah as a reference point, could serve as a template for establishing a similar centre of excellence in the UK.
Concluding Remarks
This series has delved into how Netanyahu’s post-Gaza “denazification” plan draws inspiration from the UAE’s repressive de-Islamisation agenda. Rooted in the countering violent extremism agenda, it aims to provide ideological support for the controversial Abraham Accords and Israel-normalizing agreements. Using the figure of the great Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام), the UAE’s agenda is blueprinted in the Document on Human Fraternity, signed by the Vatican and Al-Azhar University in Cairo and embodied in the Abrahamic Family House interfaith complex in Abu Dhabi.
The UAE’s Freemason-esque agenda is driven and supported by anti-Islam forces in the Vatican and Israel. While it enables the Vatican’s goals to undermine Islam, for Israel, the focus on Abraham facilitates the complete colonisation of Palestine and the destruction of Masjid Al-Aqsa.
We are beginning to feel the effects of this agenda here in the West through the promotion of a revised, Israel-approving “Interfaith Mark II” approach.
In concert with this project, Muslim figures in the US and the UK are (deliberately or inadvertently) diffusing confusing theological narratives that undermine the status of Masjid Al-Aqsa, the status of the Qurʾān as a complete book of guidance, the Muslim identity, and the status of the Prophet ﷺ. All this is done while lending credence to terms like the “Temple Mount” and centring the Prophet Abraham and his religion in the name of interfaith.
This revised interfaith process is bolstered by the terraforming of the social and political landscape by neocons. With measures like the Anti-Boycott Bill and the concretisation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, along with the reinforcing of the state’s counter-extremism apparatus, the space for activism exposing Israel and its crimes against Palestine and Masjid Al-Aqsa is shrinking.
Muslim organisations now confront a heightened level of repression.
Actualising this agenda in the West are the neocons. There is no hidden plan here. The neocons have shamelessly been looking to French assimilationist models of repression to deal with Muslims for some time. These are the very same neocons who have attacked the Muslim organisations singled out by Michael Gove. And like the Khan Review’s recommendations, they have long been planning on erecting new Ministries of Truth to regulate Muslims and “contentious intra-Islamic disputes”.
Recently, the Policy Exchange hosted a discussion with French “Arabist” Gilles Kepler titled “Europe after October 7: new faults lines and ripple effects”. Kepler, who, echoing Melanie “Mad Mel” Phillips, has called London “Londonistan”, made startlingly frank admissions on the question of dealing with Muslims.
Describing the French domestic security response, he states that Muslims are using “radical mosques” to use politicians on the Left, which creates a “wider pond” that is difficult for police to “infiltrate”. He explains that this is a “big challenge” because “If you start to dissolve those organisations then you’re named an Islamophobe. Being named an Islamophobe is something that will bring more of the so-called moderate Muslims against the state.”
He then provides a disturbing example of the Collective Against Islamophobia in France or CCIF, which was dissolved by the French state. It is worth noting that the CCIF was closed on highly tenuous grounds and condemned by Human Rights Watch as censorship of civil society. But for Kepler, this was an example of repression working:
“At the end of the day, you know, repression worked and we have no such thing as this [CCIF] anymore which is putting pressure. So daring action against some groups on an opportune occasion [does work], and these are the lessons which are interesting to think about.”
The neocons are more than just fantasising about such repressive “lessons”. They are working with the UAE and Saudi to actively implement them as part of Netanyahu’s post-Gaza de-Islamisation plan.
The state capture by neocon fascists, prioritising Israel above all, should be a concern for us all. Beneath the veneer of human rights and social cohesion, the neocons are advancing authoritarianism to shield Israel – a genocidal rogue state that horrifies and shocks daily – throughout society. Civil society will no doubt bear the brunt of this authoritarianism. The people of Britain must recognise that Muslims are the canaries in the mineshaft. We are often the first to experience the repression that the rest of British society will likely face.
As Muslims, we must realise that such plans are not new, even if they involve sites and figures close to our hearts. The Ummah has faced many a great design by its enemies and has survived. It too will see through the abuse of the Prophet Ibrahīm (عليه السلام) to further goals to destroy Masjid Al-Aqsa and colonise Palestine. To quote a relevant verse from Surah Ibrahīm (14:46),
“And they devised their plot, and whatever they plot is before Allah, even though their plot is such as would move the mountains.”
It is imperative that we remain resilient on the way of Allah and His Messenger, prioritising the protection of Masjid al-Aqsa and Palestine in our activism. To achieve this, we must understand the post-Gaza plan well and strategize our offence against the repressive proxies of Israel and the UAE here in the West.
It is highly likely that neocons in government and media will renew their efforts to disrupt and undermine Muslim organisations and ʿulama critical of Israel. Therefore, we should support Muslim organisations and ʿulama that are in the cross-hairs of the Arab-Zionist alliance in every way we can.
If the Palestinians are at the frontline of protecting the Sacred Sanctuary, then it is our duty in the West to do everything we can to support their defence.
References
[1] Khan cites the work of Gianmaria Bottoni. According to his latest study, “The observational nature and the cross-sectional design of the study prevent the identification of casual relationships and potential longitudinal effects.” In other words, it is not possible to determine whether social cohesion factors identified in the study leads to a better quality of life, or vice versa.
Bottoni, G., Addeo, F. The Effect of Social Cohesion on Subjective Individual Quality of Life in European Countries. Soc Indic Res 171, 1111–1133 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03284-6.
[2] “FRH Omnibus Poll (2024) ‘Independent Review of Social Cohesion and Resilience’ Freedom restricting harassment in the poll was defined as where individuals are targeted with threatening, intimidatory and or abusive behaviour which causes them to feel fearful for the safety or wellbeing of themselves or their family/loved ones and is causing them to censor themselves, or restrict their rights or freedoms as a result.“
CoolnessofHind 