An excerpt from what Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis said on the Bondi Beach Massacre on Erev Hanukkah to the BBC this afternoon
Cornelius Hamelberg
An excerpt from what Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis said on the Bondi Beach Massacre on Erev Hanukkah to the BBC this afternoon
“That is how the Intifada is globalized. It's gone on for far too long and we have to be far stricter with regard to what people are allowed to say and to do in a way which incites the hatred, which produces the violence that we have witnessed…The poisonous venom that is spread by so many thousands of people every single day is causing enormous harm and far more must be done to control and to regulate it…We can't only allow ourselves to tackle the symptoms. We need also to tackle the cause, the hatred, which is producing these acts.”
:File summary
General OverviewInterview Summary: The interviewee, identified as the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, discussed the rise of antisemitic hatred and violence. He argued that certain chants, such as "globalize the Intifada," directly incited violent acts, citing recent examples in Manchester and on Bondi Beach. He called for significantly stricter regulation of social media to stop the spread of hate and urged for more government support for the physical security of Jewish communities. The interviewee stressed that in addition to managing the symptoms of violence, it was crucial to address the root cause, which he identified as hatred.
Interviewee Background: The interviewee was Speaker 2, who was identified by Speaker 1 as the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. His expertise was centered on religious leadership and issues affecting the Jewish community. The interviewer was Speaker 3, who asked questions to guide the conversation.
Key PointsThe interviewee asserted that chants like "globalize the Intifada" and "from the river to the sea" were direct incitements to hatred and inspired violent actions.
He claimed that social media platforms were spreading "poisonous venom" and required much stricter regulation and control from governments.
He stated that while existing security measures for Jewish communities were appreciated, they were insufficient and that more needed to be done.
The interviewee emphasized the necessity of tackling the root cause of antisemitism—the hatred itself—rather than only focusing on the symptoms, such as physical attacks.
"That is how the Intifada is globalized. It's gone on for far too long and we have to be far stricter with regard to what people are allowed to say and to do in a way which incites the hatred, which produces the violence that we have witnessed." (00:48) - This was said while the interviewee was explaining the real-world consequences of specific protest chants, linking them directly to acts of violence.
"The poisonous venom that is spread by so many thousands of people every single day is causing enormous harm and far more must be done to control and to regulate." (01:26) - This quote was part of the interviewee's response to a question about what practical steps governments could take to combat hate that is spread online.
"We can't only allow ourselves to tackle the symptoms. We need also to tackle the cause, the hatred, which is producing these acts." (02:28) - The interviewee made this statement to argue that physical security measures were not enough and that the underlying ideology of hate must also be confronted.
"Isn't it so sad at a time such as this, living in this modern era that Jewish people can only attend synagogue, children go to schools, or go to Jewish events? If we are within gates, if there is tight security around us..."
"We can't only allow ourselves to tackle the symptoms. We need also to tackle the cause, the hatred, which is producing these acts."
Main Arguments:
The interviewee argued that certain political chants were not harmless speech but direct incitements to hatred and violence against Jewish people (00:21). * He contended that social media platforms were failing to self-regulate and that governments needed to impose much stricter controls to stop the spread of hate (01:16). * He posited that current security provisions for the Jewish community were inadequate and that more government support was required (01:54). * He concluded that a comprehensive strategy must address the ideological roots of hatred, not just the physical manifestations of violence (02:28).
Supporting Evidence:
The interviewee cited an incident at Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester on Yom Kippur as an example of incitement leading to action (00:41). * He also referenced a recent event on Bondi Beach to illustrate how the "Intifada is globalized" (00:45). * He pointed to the universal need for tight security with gates at synagogues, Jewish schools, and community events as evidence of the persistent threat (02:05).
Recurring Themes:
A primary theme was the direct connection between inflammatory rhetoric and physical violence (PT00H00M21S, PT00H00M53S). * The inadequacy of current measures, both from social media companies and governments, was a recurring point of concern (PT00H01M16S, PT00H01M54S). * The persistent and sad necessity for high levels of security for Jewish community life was highlighted throughout the conversation (PT00H01M40S, PT00H02M05S).
Emerging Trends:
The interviewee identified a trend he called the "globalization" of the "Intifada," suggesting that a localized conflict was being used to inspire global acts of hate (00:24). * He highlighted an urgent and growing need for governmental regulation of social media as a new frontier in combating hate speech (01:16).
Interview Flow: The interviewee's tone was urgent and direct from the outset. He began with a strong, passionate statement connecting specific language to violent outcomes. The interview proceeded logically from identifying the problem (incitement) to discussing solutions (regulation, security) and the underlying cause (hatred). The interviewee remained focused and resolute in his message throughout the exchange.
Question Analysis: The interviewer's questions were effective and facilitated a detailed response. The questions about practical government responses (01:05) and the delivery of security pledges (01:40) successfully pushed the interviewee to move beyond generalities and provide specific areas for action. The interviewee's responses were substantive and directly addressed the questions while consistently reinforcing his main arguments about the need for greater action against both online hate and physical threats.
Contextual Information: The interview appeared to be conducted during a period of rising antisemitic incidents, which the interviewee described as "very dark days" (PT00H00M06S, referenced by Speaker 1). The interviewee's planned travel to Australia suggested the issue was of international concern.
Related Events: The interviewee explicitly referenced two recent events to support his arguments: an attack at Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester (00:41) and an incident on Bondi Beach in Australia (00:45).
Potential Impact: As a prominent religious leader, the interviewee's statements could increase pressure on UK government officials and social media companies to implement stricter policies against hate speech and to bolster security for Jewish institutions. His framing of certain chants as incitement to violence could influence public discourse and perception on the issue.
What specific legislative or regulatory actions would you propose for social media companies to curb the spread of what you termed "poisonous venom"?
When you stated that "far more should be done" regarding security, what practical measures are currently missing or underfunded?
How can society effectively "tackle the cause," the hatred you spoke of, in practical terms beyond security and regulation? What role should education play?
You differentiated between tackling symptoms and the cause. In your view, where does the responsibility lie for addressing the root cause of this hatred?
Regarding the chants you mentioned, where do you draw the line between legitimate political expression, however offensive, and direct incitement that should be restricted?