Fury over LSE launch for new book that ‘whitewashes' Hamas
Understanding Hamas and Why That Matters, which claims the proscribed terror organisation is subjected to vilification, will be launched at the London School of Economics (LSE) next month.
Campaigners have accused LSE of disregarding the group's violent history, including the Oct 7 massacre, and have urged it to cancel the event.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism claimed that the book is 'an outrageous attempt to whitewash Hamas' barbaric acts of horror', and the LSE event itself is further evidence of how British universities 'have become epicentres of Jew-hatred'.
Anti-Semitic abuse on campuses in the UK has reached record levels following the Hamas attacks against Israel on Oct 7, according to a report by the Community Security Trust (CST).
In December, the CST found that widespread pro-Palestine activism led to many Jewish students feeling university life had become increasingly 'hostile' towards Jews.
Students at LSE slept in the university's atrium for more than a month in support of Palestine and only left after losing a legal challenge.
A spokesman for the Campaign Against Antisemitism said: 'This book's synopsis describes Hamas as 'a widely misunderstood movement' and says that 'the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas has been subjected to intense vilification'. Perhaps that is because it capped decades of lethal suicide bombings with the massacre of 1,200 and the abduction of some 250 people.
'Is such conduct not worthy of 'vilification'?
'This appears to be an outrageous attempt to whitewash Hamas's barbaric acts of horror.
'For all their virtuous anti-racism rhetoric, our universities have become epicentres of Jew-hatred and this event is yet another example of how bad the problem is. We will be writing to LSE, which must cancel this propaganda event immediately.'
The university's Middle East Centre, which is hosting the event on March 10, said the book explores Hamas's 'shift from social and religious activism to national political engagement'.
The talk will feature the book's author and academics researching the Middle East.
The centre's director Michael Mason, who will chair the book launch, said the event is 'covered by LSE's commitment to academic freedom and free speech'.
In a statement to The Jewish Chronicle, he said: 'The Middle East Centre does not (as with LSE as an institution) take a formal position on political or international issues.
'We endeavour to provide a platform to facilitate discourse on contemporary matters by encouraging critical debate, within the law, where the views of all parties are treated with respect.'
He added 'Nothing from the hosting of this event can reasonably be construed as the Middle East Centre or LSE condoning Hamas and its actions on October 7.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
24 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Afghan data breach cover-up is a genuine scandal
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The scandal that landed last week over the cover-up of a massive data breach of not only tens of thousands of potential Afghan refugees but also British intelligence agents and special forces personnel will run deeper and longer than the headlines and outrage it generated. We have come to expect significant data breaches, be they through incompetence and error of administrators, the criminal exploits of organised crime or political agents of foreign powers intent on bringing down our democratic freedoms. What continues to shock many people, however, is when the politicians and officials we expect to look after our interests go to extraordinary lengths to cover-up their failures, be they innocent or guilty of the original misjudgment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Our political class appears to find no difficulty in being prepared to sign-off not just millions or even hundreds of millions – but billions of pounds to make problems we were not even aware of appear to go away. Large numbers of Afghans fled the country when Western forces withdrew and the Taliban took over Kabul in 2021 (Picture: Master Sgt Donald Allen/US Air Forces Europe-Africa) | U.S. Air Forces Europe-Africa vi Democratic scrutiny denied As if that is not a scandalous enough breach of public trust, some politicians then travel down the road of using legal processes such as super-injunctions to prevent public knowledge of their department's administrative failure to protect them from political embarrassment. The use of a super-injunction means the reporting of the actual injunction itself is not possible – so only a limited few are aware of the scandal and the legal cover-up that has taken place. It means the ordinary democratic processes of public scrutiny and accountability are automatically denied and the democratic order of making elected representatives responsible for their judgments and actions is bypassed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad One might think the natural order of actions having consequences in a democracy would be restored when there is a change of government but, as is so often the case, the poor decisions of previous governments are very often picked up by new administrations who see there is advantage in continuing with the same approach as they too might suffer some blow-back and might want to avail themselves of the same secret protections. Veterans at risk To sum up, when the real life-threatening failure for many of sending personal data to the wrong person was discovered, a conspiracy between ruling politicians, government officials and then opposition politicians who became the new rulers resulted in several billions being committed to accepting 25,000-30,000 refugee applicants into our country. The possibility that some of those might actually not be who they appeared to be, but have criminal histories and intentions or be agents of terrorist groups cannot be discounted. Meanwhile the new government, aided by many activist lawyers working through lawfare, take it upon themselves to instigate processes that put our veterans at risk of prosecution and spend a great deal less on veterans' welfare such as housing. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Unsurprisingly, these revelations have led to recriminations about the role of some previously respected politicians who were thought to be on the side of veterans and seen as hawks in the pursuit of protecting our all-too-porous borders. Politicians such as the former Secretaries of State for Defence, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps, have been forced to justify their actions at the time. Of course, when a scandal breaks under the pressures of competitive politics, naïve confusion and wilful misrepresentation abounds. Some politicians who were not in office at the time and had no responsibility for a particular error – such as the application for a super-injunction or the establishment of potentially costly refugee schemes that could be open to abuse – are smeared by the accusations and recriminations. Super-injunction may have backfired Establishing a timeline of when decisions were taken, whom they were taken by and what the consequences were becomes crucial in determining if the policies pursued were justifiable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the case of the mistaken release of data, there is now good reason to believe the pursuit of the super-injunction – while thought at the time to be necessary to protect lives – only served to elevate the importance of the data and make it more valuable to the Taliban. Sadly this type of misjudgment without consequences is all too prevalent in British establishment circles. We should recall how in June 2021, Angus Lapsley, a British official, left behind classified Ministry of Defence documents at a bus stop in Kent. They were found by a member of the public, dripping wet from the rain and handed in to the BBC. The papers included PowerPoint presentations and e-mails that revealed sensitive military recommendations regarding the UK's military presence in Afghanistan; details about the British military's response to Russia's reaction to HMS Defender's passage through disputed Ukrainian waters; further plans for a possible UK military presence in Afghanistan; details of service numbers around Kabul and arms export campaigns. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lapsley was not dismissed or prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act but had his security clearance suspended and was redeployed to the Foreign Office. Yet this year he was appointed Britain's permanent representative to Nato. In contrast, another senior civil servant, Richard Jackson, was fined £2,500 under the Act for leaving sensitive papers about al-Qaeda on a train in 2008. Politicians must trust public Cover-ups and sometimes consequence-free misjudgments appear all too easy in our parliaments. If our political discourse and decision-making – including whom we choose to elect – is to improve, then we need to be better informed. Treating the public as children rather than adults only ever results in child-like behaviours and outcomes. For our people to make considered choices and be able to trust our politicians requires far more trust in the public from the politicians themselves. When Prime Ministers make promises before general elections, they should be expected to do everything in their power to deliver them – or learn not to make pledges they cannot keep. When politicians fail, they should be ready to accept responsibility, and only those that do should be given the opportunity for redemption – rather than shielding those who have hidden the truth from us for years and even decades.
Scotsman
24 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Police make three arrests in Edinburgh over 'support for a proscribed organisation'
Police say they have arrested three men in Edinburgh under the Terrorism Act 2000 for showing support for a proscribed organisation. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It comes after a march through the city on Saturday by thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Police Scotland said two men aged 78 and 60 years, were arrested for showing support for a proscribed organisation at a protest in Edinburgh on Saturday, 19 July 2025. Police said three men had been arrested | TSPL Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And the force said, in addition, at around 1.30pm on Monday, 21 July 2025, a 58-year-old man was arrested by officers in the vicinity of the Scottish Parliament for displaying a sign showing support for a proscribed organisation. Police said reports would be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal.
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Tommy Robinson is the last thing Epping needs
Much of the reporting on the anti-migrant protests at the Bell Hotel in Epping has focused on the violence and disorder. But from speaking with residents, I believe the vast majority of protestors are peaceful, although some blame the police for provoking the situation by allowing 'counter-protestors' from Stand Up To Racism into the area on Thursday night. Orla Minihane is a local mum of three who has lived in the area since she was 12 years old. She is also a Reform council candidate and a leader of the peaceful protests around the Bell Hotel, which began as a result of increasing local concern about the behaviour of migrant men living there. The arrest and charging of Hadush Kebatu, a 38-year-old migrant who arrived in the UK on June 29, for the alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl has amplified these fears. This was the final straw for the people of Epping, who feel their once safe town has become plagued by shoplifting and threatening behaviour from the hotel's tenants. Orla told me how on Thursday night the locals were determined to keep the protest peaceful. She described their surprise at seeing 'so many police everywhere ... on all the side streets' and that they 'came in heavy-handed'. Despite this, and as hundreds of locals gathered, the protest stayed calm. But within an hour Orla said that reports began to come in of masked Stand up to Racism protestors travelling to Epping via public transport. That night Essex Police, the Met and British Transport Police were present. All three forces have denied escorting these masked men towards the Bell, although the Met and Essex police have confirmed their vehicles were used to transport these protestors away after the violence had begun. Even taken at face value this seems very strange. Why would the police allow these two groups to confront each other, making a conflict inevitable? Is it common practice for violent protestors to be escorted to safety rather than being arrested? As Orla said to me, if masked counter-protestors were 'walking towards a Palestine march, what would happen? They wouldn't let them anywhere near'. Very soon after the violence began, these so-called anti-fascist protestors withdrew, leaving residents and police to clash with each other on the streets of Epping. Despite this, residents gathered again on Sunday night, with the protest led by local women, who stood in a line holding hands as they chanted 'protect our kids'. Homemade signs were held, bearing slogans like 'make England safe again', 'deport foreign criminals' and 'I'm not far-Right – I'm worried about my kids'. This last slogan captures the beliefs of the protestors. They are absolutely clear that this is a group of residents, especially parents, who believe the large number of migrant men housed at the Bell represent a grave threat to local children. This fear is perfectly reasonable. Official figures show that Afghans in the UK are 22 times more likely than Brits to be convicted of sexual assault. Indeed, according to the Centre for Migration Control, Home Office statistics indicate that 87 nationalities have a higher conviction rate for sexual violence than the British population. This shouldn't be surprising, nor is it racist to recognise this reality. Afghan men are raised in a profoundly misogynistic culture, where women are treated like property. In the last 24 hours, Tommy Robinson has suggested he will attend next Sunday's protest at the Bell, before apparently changing his mind in a video posted today. He should stay away. The brave men and women of Epping are sending a powerful message. The local council leader, and the MP, are behind them, both calling for the asylum seekers to leave the Bell Hotel. Outsiders, whether supporters of Robinson or masked 'anti-fascists', will only distract from the real protest, and make women and girls less safe.
