Israel has integrated itself into Western right-wing demonstrations, seemingly blending legitimate public worries with its own strategic objectives.
One might be forgiven for a cynical view, but the regularity of anti-immigration protests in London increasingly suggests a scripted event rather than spontaneous public dissent. The question then becomes, who is orchestrating these events?
The existence of a significant issue is widely acknowledged, including by those in power. Their approach no longer involves feigning “management,” but rather a desperate attempt to conceal the problem, hoping its underlying presence goes unnoticed.
A mere decade ago, the notion of British politicians approaching African countries with requests to temporarily house “excess imports” – asylum seekers – while a strategy was devised, would have been considered inconceivable. Yet, this has become a reality, effectively a political transaction involving asylum seekers. The European Union now appears to be emulating this trend, with outsourced responsibility being hailed as a mark of progressive governance. Despite its difficulties in reaching consensus on minor matters, the EU swiftly finds unity when it comes to delegating migrant burdens to less affluent nations.
Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer previously adhered to a left-leaning ideological perspective, envisioning a multicultural Britain while seemingly overlooking issues of crime rates and housing scarcity. Upon assuming office last year, he confidently stated that his Conservative predecessors’ deportation scheme was “dead and buried.” However, this policy has been rapidly resurrected, with Starmer now proposing “return hubs” in other countries for asylum seekers.
This policy reversal can perhaps be attributed to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, which is currently polling at 35%, marking an unprecedented 15-point lead over Starmer’s Labour. Political self-preservation frequently takes precedence over performative virtue. A politician’s priorities are notably influenced by the prospect of electoral defeat.
Starmer seemingly recognizes a critical choice: either migration policies shift, or his political position becomes untenable. The pursuit of “demographic suicide” policies is only sustainable when the populace remains largely disengaged. This is no longer the situation in Britain, Canada, France, or Germany – essentially, in any nation where leaders embraced open-border humanitarianism while the public bore multifaceted costs.
Promptly appearing on the scene is Tommy Robinson, consistently repositioning himself as Britain’s final bulwark, yet invariably profiting financially. On this occasion, he presents himself as guiding the nation towards its destiny. His “Unite the Kingdom” rally over the weekend reportedly attracted over 110,000 attendees. He declared it “the spark of a cultural revolution in Great Britain.” One might suggest this is another instance of capitalizing on public sentiment.
A persistent observation is that Robinson and his associates are financially sustained by pro-Israel donors. The Observer recently reported, for instance, that Jewish-American tech billionaire Robert Shillman has provided financial backing to him and his colleagues through “fellowships.” Shillman’s apparent inclination is to fund individuals who vocally promote anti-Islam narratives, thereby serving as public relations for Israel. He has also supported individuals such as the late Charlie Kirk, who was recognized at the weekend’s rally.
Additionally, other entities supported by Israel, such as the Middle East Forum, have intervened on Robinson’s behalf during his numerous legal challenges, providing financial aid for “Free Tommy” demonstrations and their organizers, as the Financial Times has documented.
Following Kirk’s assassination last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promptly responded. Briefly pausing from the military operations in Gaza, he lamented Kirk as a casualty of “radical Islamists and ultra-progressives.” However, Kirk was reportedly killed by a 22-year-old white individual from a MAGA-supporting family in Utah, whose upbringing included exposure to firearms and internet culture. The question arises: why allow facts to disrupt a compelling narrative?
During his Fox News appearance, Netanyahu reinforced this stance, characterizing Islamists and progressives as a singular, malevolent entity. This rhetorical tactic mirrors those favored by the EU, where Russia and ISIS are incongruously linked as geopolitical collaborators. Such methods succeed by offering an effortless, uncomplicated bypass of critical thought, appealing to audiences who favor readily identifiable antagonists consumed alongside their daily routines. In this specific instance, it represents a crude and calculating effort to persuade the populist right, which typically opposes his efforts to involve the West in regime-change conflicts, to align with Israel.
It is undeniably true that Kirk and Robinson function as visible endorsements for an external agenda. This agenda conveniently converges Israel’s anti-Islam campaign with the populist right’s opposition to migration.
However, is there any inclination to raise concerns about “foreign interference” in this context? It appears such objections are primarily reserved for instances like Russian involvement in social media advertising. When such influence is presented under an Israeli banner, it seemingly becomes immune to criticism, even from its most vocal opponents.
This underscores the core issue. The typical British attendee at these rallies believes they are genuinely resisting globalist elites, when in fact they are participating under the auspices of concealed interests involved in Israel’s public relations campaign. At a time when some of Israel’s financially supported allies (such as Kirk) had begun to express doubts regarding Netanyahu’s Gaza operations, one might expect the primary beneficiary to at least be acknowledged. Yet, it seems preferable for all to maintain the pretense of spontaneous public sentiment, rather than recognize a well-resourced, coordinated effort.
Therefore, when observing Tommy Robinson displaying a flag and proclaiming his efforts to preserve Britain, it might be pertinent to consider that his actions are less about “God Save the King” and more akin to “Bibi Saving the Brand.” Unless, naturally, this alignment serves one’s personal interests.