A video recently circulating online — shared by Sussex Friends of Israel via the Potkin Azarmehr feed — captures the extraordinary moment a Sussex Police officer suggests that saying Jews ill children is in “the same vein” as declaring “Hamas are rapists.” The exchange is brief but chilling. When corrected — that Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation and the former the claim about Jews is racism — the officer remains unmoved and goes on to say that the tone of the statements is similar.
The implication is stark: hatred toward Jews is treated as legally equivalent to critique of a recognised terrorist group. This is not merely ignorance. It is an institutional failure — one that violates the letter and spirit of British law. Under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 29 of the Public Order Act 1986, inciting hatred against a protected group — such as Jews — is a criminal offence.
The allegation that Jews are child killers is not a dramatic flourish; it is hate speech and incitement to violence. In contrast, describing Hamas as rapists is a factual statement about a proscribed terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000.
That designation and factual basis places this description firmly within freedom of expression — and not within the domain of hate crime.
But Sussex Police appear to have no regard for that distinction. Their refusal to address it is breathtaking.
Worse still, it sends a silent signal that institutional bias against Jews can pass unchallenged — that antisemitic slurs are interpreted as being “on par” with truthful commentary about violent extremists.
This is a gross dereliction of their duty to uphold the law impartially.
Our recent Forum for Foreign Relations/WBII policy briefing, Proliferation of Terror‑Associated Symbols in the UK Pro‑Palestinian Movement, laid bare a disturbing trend: major pro‑Palestinian demonstrations in Britain have become platforms not for debate, but for intimidation, often marked by invert red triangles and chants identical to those used by Hamas — a criminal offence, not a matter of opinion.
Those briefings were not exercises in abstract rhetoric. They made it clear — from a legal standpoint — that flags representing terrorism and slogans calling for genocide are not protected speech; they are provocations that demand law enforcement action.
That a Sussex officer, when confronted with a clear instance of medieval blood‑libel, refuses to recognise it as a crime, constitutes a compromise of state neutrality.
We Believe in Israel has repeatedly highlighted this precise failure in policing. In our Policing Without Prejudice and Protecting Jewish Communities briefings, we called for specialised hate‑speech training and enhanced accountability.
We demanded that forces actively enforce laws rather than abrogate them. Sussex Police’s conduct is proof enough that those measures are now urgent imperatives.
But the national implications are even more alarming. If a police force cannot distinguish between centuries‑old genocidal mythology and modern criticism of terrorism, how can Jewish communities feel secure?
How can minorities trust the justice system when their vilification is treated with benign equivalence?
Worse, the optics are grave. The officer’s suggestion surfaced during a heated discussion in which a young man or boy twice said “Israel” and “Jews” were child killers.
The officer’s suggestion that this is similar to saying “Hamas are rapists” risks normalising a hate that appeared to be alive and well in the utterances of this young person, who said what he said confidently, in front of multiple officers, in public.
The officer risks legitimising medieval slander under the veneer of balance and parity. That is not policing; that is ideology masquerading as neutrality.
Sussex Police must act. They are now investigating reports of racially aggravated public order offences and have apologised for the officer’s remarks, but they must also refer the officer’s conduct to the Independent Office for Police Conduct for disciplinary review.
They must overhaul training to ensure every officer can legally understand and act upon the difference between protected speech and criminal incitement. And they must issue a statement affirming that “blood libel is a crime — full stop.”
Why does this matter beyond Sussex? Because Britain stands at a critical moral juncture. Our legal framework has rightly outlawed genocide denial, sectarian slogans, and hate speech while protecting legitimate critique of terror.
But the moment a police officer equates lies with truth, myth with fact, our democracy trembles. To tolerate this failure is to enable repetition. Jewish communities across the UK remain vulnerable.
Extremists of every stripe will interpret this video as tacit permission. And the public will ask: if our police cannot apply straightforward law, who will?
It is not enough to bemoan the rise of hate. We must yet again demand from public institutions what is all too easily forgotten in official training documents: that facts matter, that context matters, and that truth matters most of all.
Sussex Police must correct this moment of disgrace — not through spin or sidestepping, but with clarity, courage, and accountability. For our laws demand it. Our morals insist upon it.
And our democracy cannot survive without it.