When Police Pick Sides: Why Britain’s Muslim Police Body Shouldn’t Be Calling the IDF a Terrorist Group

Target keyword: politicised policing in England

When Your Own Police Start Doing Foreign Policy

Every now and then, a news story comes along that tells you more about the state of England than any minister’s speech.

The latest example is Britain’s official Muslim police association publishing a policy paper that does three remarkable things in one go:
it defends Hamas, describes the IDF as a “Zionist terrorist group”, and brands Zionism itself as a form of anti‑Muslim hatred.

I’ve been watching English politics and policing for almost forty years, and I’ll be blunt: I don’t care whether someone is pro‑Israel, pro‑Palestine, or wants the whole Middle East to disappear off the front pages tomorrow. What I care about is simple:

• What has any of this got to do with policing in England?
• And if there is no such thing as tiered policing, why do we need religious or ethnic factions inside the police at all?

In this article, I’m going to walk through:

• What this Muslim police body actually said
• How that clashes with UK law and basic policing principles
• Why politicised policing in England is a threat to everyone – English, Muslim, Jewish, or otherwise
• And what a sane, neutral standard would actually look like in practice

By the end, you’ll see why this isn’t a “left vs right” spat. It’s about whether we still have one standard of law in England, or just rival lobbies with badges.

What Britain’s Muslim Police Association Actually Said

Let’s start with the basics.

The official body representing Muslim police officers in Britain produced a policy paper on “confronting anti‑Muslim hatred.” Fair enough. Every serious person should want genuine anti‑Muslim abuse treated properly, just as we should want antisemitism and every other form of targeted hatred dealt with.

But the paper didn’t stop there.

It reportedly:

• Described Zionism as “one of the manifestations of anti‑Muslim hatred”
• Branded the IDF – the regular army of the State of Israel – as a “Zionist terrorist group”
• Defended Hamas against “unverified” stories of violence, as if the main issue with Hamas is fact‑checking, not the suicide bombings, massacres and rocket attacks we’ve all watched for decades

This isn’t some random officer mouthing off on X late at night. This is the official representative body for a religious bloc inside the police.

Think about that for a second.

When I was younger, the idea of officers publishing a quasi‑official “line” on a foreign conflict would have been laughed out of the room. The job of the police was straightforward: enforce the law, keep order, and stay out of party politics and foreign wars.

Now we have recognised internal groups casually redefining who is a terrorist and what counts as hatred, along explicitly religious and ideological lines.

That is politicised policing in England, and it should ring alarm bells for anyone who thinks the law should be the same whoever you are.

Law vs Lobby: Who Gets to Decide What a Terrorist Is?

There’s a very simple starting point here that most commentators skip over: in England, terrorism is defined by law, not by religious associations.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000:

• The Home Secretary can proscribe an organisation as a terrorist group
• There are set legal tests – involvement in terrorism, glorifying terrorism, fundraising for it, and so on
• Once a group is proscribed, support for it becomes a criminal matter

Under that framework:

• Hamas is officially a proscribed terrorist group in the UK
• The IDF is not. Whether you like its actions or not, it is the formal armed forces of a state the UK recognises and works with

You don’t have to admire Israel to see the problem.
When a police association declares Hamas “defended” and calls the IDF a terrorist group, it is doing two things:

1. Contradicting UK law – effectively attempting to un‑proscribe a group Parliament has banned, and to proscribe another group Parliament has not
2. Importing foreign policy into policing – choosing a side in a distant war and baking that choice into internal guidance framed as “anti‑hatred” work

In a sane system, that would be stamped on immediately.

The police enforce the laws made by Parliament and interpreted by the courts. They are not a parallel foreign office, and they are not there to re‑write the terrorism list based on which religious group shouts loudest inside their own walls.

What Has Foreign War Got To Do With Policing in England?

This is the part I keep coming back to.

I live in England, not in Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank. My concerns when I look at policing in England are things like:

• Can my family walk through town without being hassled?
• Will the police respond the same way if I’m the victim, regardless of my name or skin colour?
• Are they more interested in actual crime than monitoring “wrong opinions” on social media?

When I see the official Muslim police body taking positions on Hamas and the IDF, I ask a very simple question:

What has any of this got to do with policing the streets of England fairly?

Of course, foreign conflicts have knock‑on effects here:

• Pro‑Palestine marches every weekend
• Tensions around synagogues and mosques
• Clashes on university campuses
• Football fans being banned or restricted based on Israeli connections

But that’s precisely why the police must stand back from the ideology and stick rigidly to English law:

• If someone chants for “jihad” and it meets the legal test for incitement, deal with it.
• If it doesn’t, you don’t arrest them just to please one side of Twitter.
• If a protest threatens violence, you police the violence, not the ethnic or religious make‑up of the crowd.

Once officers – or their representative bodies – start saying “this foreign army is terrorist, that foreign militia is resistance,” they are no longer neutral referees. They are just another player on the pitch.

And if they can do that on Israel–Palestine, what stops some other internal group from doing it on India–Pakistan, Russia–Ukraine, or any other conflict that spills in through our open borders?

Policing in England should not be a cargo ship for every foreign war.

If There’s No Tiered Policing, Why Do We Need Religious Blocs Inside the Police?

We’ve been told again and again that there is no such thing as “tiered policing” in this country. No two‑tier system. No special treatment. Everyone equal before the law.

If that’s true, you have to ask:

Why do we need official religious or ethnic “associations” speaking in the name of police officers at all?

Let me be clear. While we are still a multi racial & religious society I have no problem with:

• Individual Muslims joining the police if they agree with man made law and swear their oath on the bible.
• Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Catholics, atheists and anyone else serving as constables if they do the same
• Officers privately having strong opinions about foreign politics (most of us do and we don’t police thought quite yet)

What I question is the formalisation of internal factions:

• “Muslim police association”
• “Christian police association”
• “LGBT+ network”
• “Black police association”
• And on, and on, and on

Every one of these bodies becomes a lobby group inside the force.
They push for:

• Particular training
• Particular language
• Particular interpretations of “hate”
• Particular operational priorities

And when one of them crosses the line – like defending a proscribed group and smearing a foreign army as terrorist – the leadership suddenly remembers the phrase “we are apolitical” and hopes it all blows over.

You can’t have it both ways.

Either:

• The police are neutral servants of the public and the law in England, in which case internal bodies stay well away from geopolitics and ideology

Or:

• We admit we now have politicised policing in England, where who gets treated how depends on which internal group has captured the culture in which force

You know my view. The first option is the only one that keeps any trust.

Personal Perspective: What I’ve Seen in 39 Years Watching This Slide

Let me share a couple of personal observations, because I’ve been listening to this for a long time.

When I first started following politics, you didn’t see:

• Police chiefs apologising for “institutional Islamophobia” one week and then ignoring antisemitism the next
• Officers recording “non‑crime hate incidents” because someone criticised a religion on Facebook
• Forces openly boasting about “community partnerships” that just happen, by coincidence of course, to line up with one side in a foreign conflict

But over the last two decades, we’ve seen:

• People arrested or questioned for tweets and posts that were crude or offensive but clearly not criminal
• Forces quietly refusing to act against certain protests or groups for fear of “community backlash”
• Internally, a whole industry of diversity training, “hate crime champions” and lobby‑driven policy documents

The current row over the Muslim police body and its Hamas/IDF paper is not a one‑off. It’s simply the most honest version of what has been going on in a more polite, coded way:

• Label what you like as “hate”
• Label what you dislike as “terrorist” or “extremist”
• And pressurise forces from the inside to police accordingly

As an English nationalist, I don’t want the police to be “on my side” in that way. I want them to be on the side of the law, applied evenly, in England.

I don’t want special treatment for the English. I just want an end to special treatment, full stop.

What a Sane, Neutral Standard Would Actually Look Like

It’s easy to criticise, so let me be very clear about what I think should happen.

1. No internal group should contradict UK terrorism law

• If Parliament has proscribed a group as terrorist, no police association should be defending it.
• If Parliament has not proscribed a group, no association should be labelling it “terrorist” in official documents.
• Officers are free to argue for changing the law as private citizens; they are not free to pre‑empt the law inside the force.

2. No foreign policy positions in “hate” or “diversity” guidance

• Internal guidance on hate crime, anti‑Muslim hatred, antisemitism or anything else should stick to English & Welsh law and examples relevant to day‑to‑day policing here.
• It is not the job of a Muslim police group, or any other, to decide whether Zionism, Hindutva, Irish republicanism, or anything else is “hatred” in the abstract.

3. Equal treatment of criticism and belief

• Criticising Islam, Zionism, the IDF, Hamas, or any other idea or organisation should be treated the same in principle.
• When it crosses the line into direct threats, incitement, or targeted harassment, act.
• When it is simply strong opinion or even loud protest, tolerate it – regardless of whose feelings are hurt.

4. One badge, one standard

If you wear a police badge in England, that should be your main identity while on duty.

• Not “Muslim officer”
• Not “Jewish officer”
• Not “English officer”
• Just “officer”

You bring your background and beliefs with you, but you do not bring them to bear in deciding who is a terrorist and who is a victim.

That is how you end politicised policing in England. Not by purging individuals of certain faiths, but by stripping away the factional structures and forcing everyone back to one standard: the law.

Conclusion: England Needs Law, Not Factions in Uniform

Foreign wars will come and go. Israel–Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, whatever the next one is. England will still be here.

The question is whether our basic institutions are still recognisably English – grounded in law, fairness and a clear separation between the political argument and the people tasked with enforcing the rules.

When the official body for Muslim officers in Britain feels comfortable branding the IDF a terrorist organisation and half‑defending a proscribed group, that tells you something has gone badly wrong.

If there is genuinely no tiered policing, we don’t need political and religious blocs inside the force. We need one policing standard that doesn’t care whether the complaint comes from a mosque, a synagogue, a church, or a pub in Essex.

If you agree that politicised policing in England is a threat to everyone, not just to “the other side”, then talk about it. Share this, comment, email your MP, ask your local force what internal associations they recognise and what those groups are publishing in your name.

The law is either for all of us, or it will end up being respected by none of us.

FAQs about Politicised Policing in England

1. What is politicised policing in England?

Politicised policing in England is when police forces, or official internal groups within them, start taking overt positions on political or ideological issues – especially foreign conflicts or culture‑war topics – and allow those positions to influence training, guidance or enforcement decisions. Instead of simply applying the law, they begin to act like another political actor in the system.

2. Why is it a problem if a police association calls the IDF a terrorist group?

Because UK terrorism law is set by Parliament, not by internal associations. Hamas is officially proscribed as a terrorist group; the IDF is not. When a police body reverses those labels in its own documents, it conflicts with the law it is meant to enforce and signals to officers that foreign ideological loyalties matter more than Parliament’s decisions.

3. What have foreign wars got to do with policing in England?

In principle, nothing. Policing in England should focus on crime, public order and the protection of people living here. Foreign wars become relevant only when they spill over into domestic tensions, protests or threats. Even then, the police should stick to enforcing English law neutrally, not choosing sides in the original conflict.

4. Why do we have separate religious and ethnic associations inside the police?

These groups were initially created to support minority staff and advise on cultural issues. Over time, many have become de facto lobby groups inside forces, pushing their own language, priorities and interpretations of “hatred” or “bias.” That’s where the risk of politicised policing in England comes in, because internal pressure can skew enforcement.

5. How can politicised policing in England be rolled back?

By enforcing a few hard lines:

• No internal body contradicts UK terrorism designations.
• No foreign policy positions in official internal guidance.
• Equal treatment of all forms of criticism and belief under hate‑crime laws.
• One professional identity – officer – above all factional labels while on duty.

If forces can’t or won’t do that, public trust will continue to erode.