A significant controversy has erupted as a prominent anti-racism organization faces accusations of hypocrisy following its decision to bar a pro-Israel group from participating in its events. This contentious move has ignited a broader debate surrounding freedom of expression and the evolving landscape of social justice activism, raising questions about inclusivity and ideological alignment within advocacy movements.
The anti-racist organization, Stand Up to Racism (SUTR), justified its ban by citing the pro-Israel group’s support for Israel and alleged connections to “far-right” organizations. This rationale marks a notable shift from previous stances, leading to considerable backlash from those who view the exclusion as contradictory to the organization’s foundational principles of universal welcome.
Glasgow Friends of Israel (GFI) chairman Sammy Stein expressed profound surprise at the exclusion, recalling past assurances from a leading SUTR member who had previously defended GFI’s right to attend marches. This historical context underscores the perceived inconsistency, suggesting a departure from an earlier policy of tolerating diverse viewpoints within the movement, even if not fully aligned.
Adding further complexity to the situation is a recording from a 2020 SUTR discussion on “Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, and the Rise of the Far-Right.” In this discussion, SUTR convenor Talat Ahmed explicitly stated the organization’s non-partisan position on the Middle East, asserting that SUTR welcomes “everyone, irrespective of what their positions are on a whole myriad of other politics and positions.”
Sammy Stein highlighted this specific statement, praising Ahmed’s “courageous” and “sincere” commitment to welcoming all participants regardless of their political affiliations. He conveyed his deep disappointment that SUTR now appears to be abandoning these previously articulated principles, particularly given the strong emphasis on broad inclusion voiced in earlier engagements.
In response to the accusations, SUTR Scotland secretary Héctor Sierra countered, suggesting that GFI’s focus on “hypocrisy” deflects from the core reasons for their exclusion. Sierra reiterated SUTR’s position, citing GFI’s alleged support for the “ongoing genocide in Gaza” and its purported “friendly relationships with far-right organisations” in Scotland as primary justifications for the ban.
Further evidence presented by SUTR includes specific posts from the GFI Facebook page, which reportedly referred to “the lies of starvation in Gaza” and accused media organizations of creating “fake news and propaganda at the expense of a sick child.” These examples are used by SUTR to underscore the ideological divergences that led to the decision to ban the group.
Despite these accusations, Sammy Stein firmly denied any connection between GFI and right-wing groups, addressing concerns raised by a photograph of a leading Reform councillor visiting their stall. Stein emphasized his personal connection to the Holocaust, stating that many family members were killed, and affirmed GFI’s commitment to continuing its participation in marches to “stand up to racist and especially anti-Semitism,” underscoring their dedication to anti-racism activism.
