Connect with us

Uncategorized

MPs Say Police Chief in UK Should Be Fired After Accused of ‘Covering Up’ Threat to Maccabi Tel Aviv Fans

WMP Chief Constable Craig Guildford speaking before the Home Affairs Committee on Jan. 6, 2026. Photo: Screenshot

Jewish groups and several members of Parliament in the United Kingdom are calling for the chief constable of the West Midlands Police (WMP) to lose his job after the police force was accused on Tuesday of hiding evidence about anti-Israel locals who were threatening violence against fans of the Israeli soccer team Maccabi Tel Aviv.

WMP Chief Constable Craig Guildford appeared before the Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday for a second round of questioning regarding the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, whom police claimed were “uniquely violent,” from attending a Europa League soccer match against Aston Villa in Birmingham on Nov. 6 last year.

Documents revealed on Tuesday showed that the police’s initial public safety concerns surrounding the soccer match were not because of behavior displayed by Maccabi fans, but due to “high confidence intelligence” that police received on Sept. 5 about locals in the predominantly Muslim area of West Midlands who wanted to “arm” themselves” against Maccabi fans because they are from Israel. Birmingham City Council Leader John Cotton told the committee on Tuesday that police did not share with him the intelligence they received and their honest reasoning for banning Israeli fans.

Conservative MP Karen Bradley, who chaired the committee, accused the police force of “scraping” to justify their ban against Israeli soccer fans from attending the game on Nov. 6. She told WMP officials on Tuesday: “It feels to us like you felt you needed to justify banning these fans and that scraping was done to find a reason.”

In a post on X, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Guildford’s position was now “untenable.”

“West Midlands police capitulated to Islamists and then collaborated with them to cover it up,” she said. “They knew extremists were planning to attack Jews for going to a football match, and their response was to blame and remove Jewish people instead. They presented an inversion of reality and misled a parliamentary committee. We have had enough of this in Britain. The British police serve the British public, not local sectarian interests.”

Tory MP Nick Timothy, who is an Aston Villa fan and former Home Office special adviser, also called for Guildford to be fired on Tuesday. “What was left of the credibility of West Midlands police has been destroyed” following the evidence presented to the committee, he wrote on X.

“We learned earlier that their initial reason for banning Israelis from Villa Park was the danger *to* away fans *from* ‘armed’ locals. But to justify the ban they portrayed the Israelis as ‘uniquely violent’ and military-trained,” he explained. “And when the Home Affairs Select Committee asked why the vital information about the danger *to* Israelis was kept secret, the chief constable ludicrously said it was because he had not been asked for it. “

“He is too arrogant to resign,” the MP added about Guilford. “The home secretary has the power to remove him under Section 40 of the Police Act 1996. She should use it.”

Timothy further criticized the police force, saying, “We basically had the mob saying we’re not prepared to have Israelis come to the city we live in and the police decided to appease the mob — and we all know where appeasement ends.” He also accused WMP of “lying” repeatedly in an effort to explain their ban against Maccabi fans and failing to take on “extreme elements in the communities they are supposed to police.”

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said Tuesday’s committee hearing was “yet another disgraceful performance from West Midlands police.” He added that the meeting clearly showed “the threat of armed Islamist thugs was a key consideration in the force’s decision to ban Israeli fans from attending the match, but this crucial detail was held back.”

“The chief constable’s pathetic excuse that he wasn’t asked is just the latest attempt to cover up a farce of his own making,” the MP added. “His position is untenable. If he doesn’t resign, then the home secretary must use her powers to sack him, and even more importantly explain exactly what she knew and when.”

Reform leader Nigel Farage told reporters that Guildford “needs to go today” during a press conference on Wednesday to announce the party’s 2028 mayoral candidate for London.

“It was monstrous that the impression was given that the Jewish-Israeli fans would be violent, when the truth is there were serious threats of violence against them, and huge degrees of misinformation, fed in by local elected politicians in the West Midlands with the assistance of one or two mosques, who do not have good reputations,” Farage said. “I thought the performance yesterday in front of the Commons committee was absolutely abject, so he needs to go first.”

The Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews also called for Guildford to lose his job in a joint statement issued on Tuesday.

“It seems that the police reached a decision first, and then searched for evidence to justify it, apparently influenced by the threat posed by local extremists,” they said. “The police excluded (having initially included) any assessment of the significant risk to the Jewish community, and claimed to have consulted the local community in advance of the decision, which they had not.”

“In light of these events,” the Jewish groups continued, “significant harm has been done to the confidence of the Jewish community in the police. Action must be taken to ensure that these failures do not recur and to restore trust. Accountability matters. Considering the chief constable’s role in these events, a change of leadership is essential. If the chief constable does not step aside, responsibility lies with central government to intervene.”

The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) also called on Guildford to step down.

“We believe Chief Constable Craig Guildford has failed to uphold the standards of neutrality and responsibility required of his office,” CAM Director of European Affairs Shannon Seban wrote in a letter to UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. “We therefore respectfully call for his resignation. Should he refuse, decisive action by the home secretary is warranted.”

Guildford insisted there “wasn’t any political interference” in the decision to ban Maccabi fans from the soccer match in November. He said he was “very much sorry,” adding, “I do regret the focus that this has placed on our local Jewish community.”

Mike O’Hara, assistant chief constable of West Midlands police, also insisted there was “no conspiracy” behind the ban when speaking to the parliamentary committee on Tuesday. “There was a lot of intelligence that people would actively seek out Maccabi fans and seek violence towards them. There was a bubbling situation locally,” he said.

The police told the committee they were informed by senior Dutch officers that Maccabi fans were responsible for violence during a match against Ajax in Amsterdam in November 2024, but Dutch authorities have denied those claims.

The Embassy of Israel in the United Kingdom said on Wednesday that the police force’s initial portrayal of Israeli soccer fans as violent “was a gross mischaracterization that served the needs of those actively inciting against an Israeli team.”

“This framing diverted attention away from credible intelligence warnings regarding extremist elements preparing to target Israeli and Jewish Maccabi supporters, and instead placed blame on the very community that was facing the threat,” the embassy added in a statement shared on X. “The decision to obscure these assessments, and to allow a misleading narrative to take hold, raises serious questions. These acts by law enforcement institutions undermine real security risks, and even encourages a climate in which hostility towards Israeli and Jewish communities can be normalized under the rule of law. These matters require full accountability.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Uncategorized

Rabbi who coached Adam Brody for ‘Nobody Wants This’ calls him ‘ignorant Jew’ over Gaza ‘genocide’ comments

(JTA) — The rabbi who coached Adam Brody for Netflix’s “Nobody Wants This” has bashed him for saying that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.

Steve Leder, the former senior rabbi of Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles, served as a consultant on depictions of Judaism for Season 1 of “Nobody Wants This,” a rom-com in which Brody plays a rabbi who falls for an agnostic non-Jewish podcaster.

Leder denounced Brody on Wednesday over recent comments in which the Jewish actor for the first time publicly expressed his views on Israel’s actions in Gaza. Brody told GQ, “Put me down as thinking it’s a genocide. Put me down as wanting a free Palestine.”

Leder said in an Instagram video that Brody’s statements were “truly shocking,” “flippant” and “disgusting,” asserting his own view that “there is no genocide in Gaza.”

“You, by your own admission, are a relatively ignorant Jew, and your ignorance really showed the other day,” said Leder. “If you’re going to use a word like genocide, you ought to know what it means.”

Leder appeared to be referring to Brody’s previous descriptions of his limited Jewish education. Brody has said he is an atheist who “barely got bar mitzvahed and retained nothing from it,” adding that he prepared for the role of rabbi Noah Roklov in “Nobody Wants This” by attending a Shabbat service and working through books, podcasts and documentaries about Judaism.

Brody played high-profile Jewish characters including Seth Cohen in “The O.C.” and Seth Morris in “Fleishman Is in Trouble” before “Nobody Wants This,” which returns for a third season on Oct. 22.

The show itself has conspicuously avoided the subject of Israel. “Nobody Wants This” creator Erin Foster — who converted to Judaism in Leder’s synagogue — told The Free Press last year that she made a deliberate choice not to deal with the issue.

“We never say Israel or Palestine in the show, and that’s intentional because I think it would be a distraction and that this is just not the show to tell that story,” said Foster.

Brody told GQ that the Gaza war, alongside other national and global crises in recent years, revealed that he and his Hollywood peers were not as “like-minded” as he previously believed.

“Between COVID, a second Trump term, Israel-Gaza, it’s really brought out some different beliefs that I was ignorant to, and then disheartened by,” he said.

Israel’s actions in Gaza have divided the entertainment industry — and Jewish stars. While celebrities such as Jerry Seinfeld, Gal Gadot and Amy Schumer have voiced support for Israel since the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, other Jewish actors have said that Israel subsequently committed genocide, including Hannah Einbinder and Wallace Shawn.

The genocide accusation is heavily disputed. A United Nations Commission of Inquiry, along with international and Israeli human rights groups, has concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza fit that description. However, the International Court of Justice has not yet issued a final judgment on allegations of genocide brought by South Africa against Israel. Israel rejects the accusation.

The post Rabbi who coached Adam Brody for ‘Nobody Wants This’ calls him ‘ignorant Jew’ over Gaza ‘genocide’ comments appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

How Netflix’s ‘East of Eden’ handled its ‘Timshel’ problem for Hebrew speakers

The crux of John Steinbeck’s East of Eden, now a splashy Netflix miniseries, is a Hebrew word that doesn’t exist.

At one point in Steinbeck’s 600-page tome, as rife with biblical allegory as the Salinas Valley is with natural beauty, the character Lee offers a midrash on Genesis 4, and the moment God rejects Cain’s offering.

Speaking with Samuel Hamilton, the neighbor of the Trask family at the center of the generational drama, Lee said he was bothered by a passage where God says, in the King James Bible, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”

Lee says he compared translations and finally returned to the source: Hebrew, by way of some learned Chinese elders who consulted a rabbi.

In the Hebrew, they found the word “timshel,” which they translate as “thou mayest. Thou mayest rule over sin.” (The word, the last one of Steinbeck’s book, is the title of the final episode of the Netflix series.)

“The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin, and you can call sin ignorance,” Lee tells Samuel, scholar to scholar. “The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel — ‘Thou mayest’ — that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’ — it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’”

This interpretation, in a book about how sin may be transmitted from one set of Cain and Abel-like brothers to the next, is the core of Steinbeck’s philosophy. So central is it that he carved the word onto a wooden box containing the manuscript.

But as I am hardly the first to note, “timshel” is a corruption of “timshol,” תמשל, and it doesn’t mean “thou mayest.” It means something like “you will rule” — future tense, second person, a more complete thought.

That said, the sages did debate whether the word was truly determinative or implied a sense of choice. (Ramban and Rashi are among the ones to suggest free will factored into the equation.)

While quoting the whole phrase in English, Steinbeck evidently thought the word “timshol” only indicated how one might rule, and did not encompass the piece about the ruling. As our language columnist Aviya Kushner has written, Steinbeck’s explanation “reveals an ignorance of the basic fact that Hebrew is more concise than English.”

Steinbeck was writing for an English-speaking audience. Zoe Kazan released her miniseries on Netflix and to a global audience that includes around 9 to 10 million Hebrew speakers. How did they adapt the passage for the Hebrew subtitles?

In the show, the scene plays out much the same way. Lee (Hon Lee) and Samuel (Ciarán Hinds) are at the kitchen table of the Trask homestead in the valley.

The King James has God tell Cain “thou shalt” rule over sin. It sounds, as Lee says, like “a promise.” The American Standard Bible translates it as “do thou.” “More of an order” from the Almighty, says Samuel.

Lee said Jewish scholars in San Francisco found the original in “timshel,” which, as in the book, is translated as “thou mayest.”

In the Hebrew subtitles, the word is correctly rendered as timshol, תמשול. Netflix translated his reading as “thou mayest” as, literally, “a choice is in your hand,” which, while not actually what the word means in Hebrew, suggests it’s something a bit more layered than “thou mayest.”

(Netflix did not respond to a request for comment about how the Hebrew translations were decided on.)

Perhaps the spirit of it — if not the letter — is what matters. And indeed, the rejection of evil as an inborn element of human nature has more in common with Jewish tradition than the Episcopalian concept of original sin and agency linked to God that Steinbeck grew up with.

Lee reasons that “timshel,” a Steinbeckian invention, may be the most important word there is.

“It offers a choice,” he says. “Our future isn’t determined by God or by our past. Even Cain in his weakness and his filth at the murder of his brother can still choose his course. Because timshel. Thou mayest.”

It’s a worthwhile message that of course resonates. But, of course, thou mayest also consult Hebrew speakers.

Mira Fox contributed research and translation.

The post How Netflix’s ‘East of Eden’ handled its ‘Timshel’ problem for Hebrew speakers appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Even Adam and Eve weren’t satisfied

האָסטו אַמאָל געטראַכט: „ווען איך וואָלט נאָר געהאַט דאָס אָדער יענץ, אָדער ווען מײַן מצבֿ וואָלט נאָר געווען אַנדערש, וואָלט איך געווען גליקלעך…“?

עס איז זייער אַנטמוטיקנדיק צו גלייבן אַז עס פֿעלט אונדז דאָס וואָס מיר דאַרפֿן כּדי צו דערגרייכן אונדזערע צילן און צו זײַן גליקלעך. און נאָך מער: ווען מען קומט צו אַזאַ מסקנה, פֿילט מען זיך ווי אַ קרבן פֿון די אומשטענדן, אוממעכטיק צו בײַטן די מציאות צום גוטן.

אָבער איז עס טאַקע אַזוי?

אין טיפֿן איז דאָס אַ פֿאַלשער חשבון. פֿרייד איז ניט אָפּהענגיק פֿון דעם וואָס מיר האָבן אָדער האָבן ניט, נאָר פֿון דעם ווי מיר קוקן אויף וואָס מיר האָבן און אויף וואָס עס פֿעלט אונדז.

אין דער וואָכעדיקער סדרה, בראשית, לייענען מיר וועגן בריאת־העולם און איר שפּיץ — די באַשאַפֿונג פֿון אָדם און חוה.

וואָס קען זײַן אַ בעסערער בײַשפּיל, אַז גליק איז ניט אָפּהענגיק פֿון אויסערלעכע אומשטענדן, ווי אָדם און חוה אין גן־עדן?

האָט זיי עפּעס געפֿעלט? ניין.

און דאָך האָבן זיי אַליין באַוויזן צו פֿאַרפּלאָנטערן דעם מצבֿ.

עס איז געווען בלויז איין בוים, פֿון וועמענס פֿרוכטן ג־ט האָט זיי פֿאַרווערט צו עסן, און זיי האָבן זיך ניט געקענט אײַנהאַלטן פֿון עסן דווקא פֿון יענעם בוים!

און נאָך מער: לויט דעם תּנא רבי מאיר איז דער בוים געווען אַ ווײַנשטאָק. זיי האָבן זיך געדאַרפֿט אָפּהאַלטן פֿון זײַנע פֿרוכטן בלויז עטלעכע שעה, ביז שבת וואָלט זיך אָנגעהויבן; דאַן וואָלטן זיי געקענט מאַכן קידוש אויפֿן ווײַן און אַזוי אײַנפֿירן אַן אייביקן שבת.

פֿאַר וואָס האָבן זיי ניט געקענט זיך אײַנהאַלטן?

עס איז אַ טייל פֿון אונדזער נאַטור צו וועלן דווקא דאָס וואָס מיר קענען ניט האָבן, און ניט אָפּצושאַצן ווי געהעריג דאָס וואָס מיר האָבן יאָ.

עס קלינגט כּמעט אומגלייבלעך — כאָטש דאָס געשעט צו אָפֿט — אָבער ווען ג־ט קומט צו אָדם און פֿאָדערט בײַ אים אַן ענטפֿער פֿאַר וואָס ער האָט געגעסן פֿון בוים, באַשולדיקט ער „די פֿרוי וואָס דו האָסט מיר געגעבן צו זײַן מיט מיר“, ווײַל זי האָט אים געגעבן צו עסן פֿון בוים.

וואָס פֿאַר אַן אומדאַנקבאַרקייט!

ג־ט האָט אים געגעבן אַ פֿרוי, ווײַל ער האָט געזען ווי שטאַרק אָדם לײַדט פֿון זײַן איינזאַמקייט. און אַנשטאָט אָפּצושאַצן דעם אוצר וואָס ער האָט באַקומען, קריטיקירט ער זי און באַשולדיקט זי.

אין אַ בריוו צו איינעם וואָס פֿלעגט זיך אָפֿט באַקלאָגן וועגן זײַן לעבן, שרײַבט דער ליובאַוויטשער רבי — זכותו יגן עלינו:

„אין דער וועלט אין וועלכער מיר לעבן, געפֿינט זיך אין אַלע זאַכן אַ געמיש פֿון גוטס און שלעכטס. דער מענטש דאַרף אויסקלײַבן אויף וועלכן פֿון די צוויי צדדים ער וויל לייגן דעם טראָפּ, אויף וועלכן ער וויל טראַכטן, און וועלכן ער וויל נאָכגיין…

„ווי באַלערנדיק איז דאָס וואָס אונדזערע חכמים זאָגן וועגן דעם וואָס אָדם איז געווען אַן אומדאַנקבאַרער: נאָך איידער ער איז פֿאַרטריבן געוואָרן פֿון גן־עדן — ווען ער האָט זיך נאָך געפֿונען אין אַ ממשותדיקן גן־עדן — האָט ער זיך שוין באַקלאָגט וועגן זײַן מצבֿ.

„פֿון דער אַנדערער זײַט זענען געווען ייִדן, מענער און פֿרויען, וואָס האָבן געדאַנקט און געבענטשט דעם באַשעפֿער, און געזאָגט די ברכות השחר יעדן אינדערפֿרי, בשעת זיי האָבן געלעבט אונטער די שרעקלעכסטע באַדינגונגען אין די דײַטשישע קאָנצענטראַציע־לאַגערן.

„אין דער ווירקלעכקייט וועט דער מצבֿ פֿון יעדן מענטש זיך געפֿינען ערגעץ צווישן די צוויי עקסטרעמען.

„מײַן כּוונה איז ניט אײַך צו מוסרן, נאָר אונטערצושטרײַכן אַ מציאות: וואָס פֿאַר אַ לעבן מיר לעבן — אַ לעבן פֿול מיט צופֿרידנקייט און באַדײַט, אָדער פֿאַרקערט — איז אין אַ גרויסער מאָס אָפּהענגיק פֿון אונדזער ווילנסקראַפֿט, וואָס באַשטימט צי מיר וועלן לייגן דעם טראָפּ אויף דעם פּאָזיטיוון אָדער אויף דעם נעגאַטיוון.“

מיר זײַנען מסוגל זיך צו באַקלאָגן אויף די באַדינגונגען אין גן־עדן און צו פֿילן הכּרת־הטובֿ, דאַנקשאַפֿט, אַפֿילו אין די אוממענטשלעכסטע באַדינגונגען פֿון אַ קאָנצענטראַציע־לאַגער.

איינער פֿון די פּערזענלעכע געהילפֿן בײַם רבין, הרבֿ בערל ע״ה יוניק, האָט דערציילט, אַז דער רבי האָט אים אַמאָל פּריוואַט געזאָגט:

„איך האָב געאַרבעט אויף זיך צו זען שטענדיק די זאַכן אין אַ פּאָזיטיוון ליכט; ווען ניט, וואָלט איך ניט געקענט איבערלעבן.“

ווען מען ווייסט וויפֿל פּערזענלעכע ליידן פֿון פֿאַרשידענע מינים דער רבי האָט אַליין דורכגעמאַכט, אין צוגאָב צו דעם ווייטיק פֿון די המונים מענטשן וואָס האָבן מיט אים געטיילט זייערע פּערזענלעכע צרות, קען מען פֿאַרשטיין, אַז אַזאַ בליק אויפֿן לעבן איז גאָר ניט קיין קליינע דערגרייכונג.

דערפֿאַר איז די „ווערקצײַג“ פֿון דער וואָך צו טראַכטן וועגן די פֿאָלגנדיקע פֿראַגעס:

זענען די אומשטענדן פֿון דײַן לעבן גוט אָדער שלעכט אומאָפּהענגיק פֿון דעם ווי דו קוקסט אויף זיי — אָדער ווערן זיי פֿאַר דיר גוט אָדער שלעכט דווקא צוליב דעם ווי דו קוקסט אויף זיי?

ס׳איז דאָ אַ וואָרט וואָס מען האָט געהערט אין נאָמען פֿון דעם דריטן חב״ד רבי, דעם צמח צדק זצ״ל: „אַזוי ווי מען שטעלט זיך אַוועק שבת בראשית, אַזוי גייט אַוועק אויף דעם גאַנצן יאָר“.  דריק איך אויס די האָפֿענונג אַז מיר זאָלן אין דעם אַלע מצליח זײַן און האָבן אַ גוט געבענטשט יאָר.

The post Even Adam and Eve weren’t satisfied appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News