Leicester: city of migration

This article was first published in Index on Censorship volume 32, issue 2 in 2003.

My departure early in the 1960s from Leicester, where I was born, more or less coincided with the beginning of a process of transformation that changed the city from a small town in the East Midlands grown complacent on its long prosperity to the vibrant Asian capital of Britain. In the process, it was to be physically brutalised by overzealous developers and, for a time, to suffer the reputation of the most racist city in the UK.

When I returned for an extended stay in the 1980s, the landscape of my memory had been swept away; the house where I grew up was now the city’s leading sari emporium. In repeated visits to family and friends over the past decade, I have had to relearn the city, try to fathom the complex economic, social and ethnic geography that has today earned it the title of ‘beacon city’, a place others look to for lessons in racial harmony and pointers to the achievement of that elusive target ‘cultural cohesion’, a newtake on what we once called ‘multiculturalism’.

But all that was a long way in the future in the year of my birth, 1938. Let me remember. In 1801, the population of Leicester was a modest 17,000; by 1901 it had grown to 212,489. They came for jobs from all over the UK and Ireland to work in the thriving hosiery, knitwear and boot and shoe factories, and the engineering works that provided the machines for these industries on which Leicester’s wealth was built. They lived in spreading acres of terraced houses thrown up in the latter part of the century to accommodate them.

Out of Africa

But, to all intents and purposes, Leicester remained a provincial market town, its medieval street plan and many of its timber-frame houses more or less intact. Despite the Victorian incursion with its factories, villas and teeming streets of workers’ housing, it was not a creation of the Industrial Revolution. Nor was it dependent on a single heavy industry and vulnerable to the vagaries of recession.

The population grew only another 60,000 or so in the following century. Most of the new arrivals came in the past 50 years, many of them from Africa. Their arrival in this provincial town brought changes more lasting and profound than anything since the Romans.

The town I walked with my schoolmaster grandfather was the ancient town of the Romans, with medieval streets and buildings dating from the time of the Crusades. We would stroll from the Castle Gardens at the foot of the remains of the castle by the river to the timbered Guildhall, the houses and almshouses built by city merchants, narrow streets with huddled shops smelling of tobacco and liquorice. These led, finally, into the Victorian facades of department stores and gents’ outfitters — and, of course, the vast (or so it seemed then) Leicester Co-operative Society store that dominated the high street of the modern town.

The second richest city in the Empire

Today, most of the old town has gone. The winding streets have been swept away in doubtless necessary slum clearance; much more has been sacrificed to a 1960s orgy of road-building. The Magazine stands marooned between the lanes of an urban freeway, accessible only by underpass; the castle, its gardens and the monuments of my childhood are cut off by swirling motorways and elevated roads. They have become a ‘heritage park’, no longer a living part of the city, a backwater for tourists and a throughway for students at De Montfort University. The murky waters of the Soar have been cleaned up and offer a riverside walk and, so the brochure tells me, a unique variety of river flora and fauna. Leicester is the UK’s first ecological city and is doing its best with what is left, but the destruction of the 1960s razed more than just slums. It is too late now for the once shabby but characterful seventeenth- and eighteenth-century city-centre facades, replaced with bland, anonymous reconstructions in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1936, Leicester, I was told, was the second richest city in the Empire; by 1953, it could still claim the distinction of having the second highest per capita income of any city in Europe. We grew up being told by my banker father we should be proud to live in such a city. But it didn’t translate into anything we wanted to do. Joe Orton, a local boy, said it was the most boring city in England and got away as fast as fame would carry him; JB Priestley, on a brief visit, stayed only long enough to remark that there were many worse places in which he’d rather stay. We agreed with them: it was a cultural wilderness, the result, perhaps, of the inward-looking nonconformist temperance spirit that had ruled the city council for decades and lingered still. The city fathers of the 1950s had no more time for culture entertainment than they were to show for architectural heritage. The last three commercial theatres — the Theatre Royal, the Opera House and finally the Palace of Varieties — closed, depriving us of pantomime, the Royal Ballet and other visiting delights. It was long after my day, in 1973,that the Haymarket Theatre opened and restored Leicester to the theatre circuit. We had music in De Montfort Hall, named for a long-dead earl; swimming in the open-air Lido; expeditions to the countryside, and long months spent vegetating in Lincolnshire with our grandparents. Our school was the best the city had to offer — but it was dull, provincial, and we longed to escape.

Which I did, in 1957, to university. And only then did I find out that Leicester is not what you see; at least not what I had seen. For all its complacency, Leicester had another side, invisible but discovered with shock when I delivered Christmas post in the vacations. The mean streets of working-class housing, by now down at heel and many still without bathrooms or inside lavatories, crowding up with the factories to the iron railings of our own house were familiar enough. But they hid much worse. Slums that could have come out of Dickens.

The Asian transformation

When I returned, the transformation of these places was even more dramatic than the loss of the city landscape I had once known. What I wandered through seemed nothing less than a small miracle. With the help of local council grants, whole neighbourhoods had been regenerated, houses as well as factories. Grey, depressing streets of mouldering Victorian housing had burst forth in candy colours and were once again thriving local communities — of Asians. Corner shops sold food and spices from India alongside the stock-in-trade of any neighbourhood store; the Leicester Mercury rubbed pages with publications in Gujarati and Punjabi; colourful bilingual books and wall posters for children displayed the alphabet and numbers in several languages.

It was the same with the factories and inner-city churches. Mills where the looms had long fallen silent were back in business, with the names of their new Asian owners superimposed on the ghostly letters of former household names; others had been divided into a myriad of small manufacturing units and workshops for Asian enterprise. Churches, nonconformist meeting houses, even in one case an old factory site, had become temples and mosques serving the neighbourhood.

The same was true of other old inner-city housing areas that had escaped demolition in the nick of time and had been rescued by the arrival of Asians from East Africa. The brand new Sikh gurdwara built on the site of Holy Bones, disappeared site of my ancient city, summed things up: not an appropriation, but a restoration of the city to itself. Economically and socially, the migrations of the late 1960s and early 70s — largely of Gujaratis fleeing ‘Africanisation’ in Kenya, Uganda and most recently Malawi — had, it seemed to me, saved a dying city. Along the Belgrave Road, for instance, the neglected shops of the old city centre were now Leicester’s ‘Golden Mile’, a glittering strip of shops dominated by jewellers and goldsmiths. Asians from all over the UK come here for their wedding finery, I was assured, rather than make the trip to Bombay. Diwali brings huge crowds into the area to celebrate the Hindu festival of light when this part of the city is lit up with a million lights and the explosion of fireworks. The biggest celebration outside India, it brings people into this once enclosed city. Leicester is no longer the self-regarding, inward-looking place it was, but looking out and welcoming a wider world.

Leicester is no stranger to migration. As Cynthia Brown of Leicester University’s Living History programme points out, people have been coming here since early in the nineteenth century. Then it was in pursuit of work; latterly, that went hand in hand with flight from war and persecution. Many, like the Poles who had fought in World War II and now found themselves unwelcome back in Communist Poland, settled in Leicester after the war; the late 40s saw the arrival of immigrants from the Caribbean plus the first Asians.

The flatness of the city

In 1951, the Asian population was just 624. Migration was hastened by the Commonwealth and Immigration Act of 1962: fuelled by people anxious to pre-empt its more restrictive conditions, migration had risen by 1961 to 4,624. They settled in the older inner-city areas, where cheap housing was available in the wake of the departure of English residents offered the chance to escape the decay by moving to council estates around the city. It was this early settlement that acted as the magnet, drawing dramatically increased immigration from Africa. Only a decade later, the arrival of Asians, largely Gujarati from Kenya, had swelled Leicester’s Asian population to 20,190. Despite warnings by Leicester City Council printed in Ugandan papers and inflammatory headlines speaking of disaster in the influential Leicester Mercury, it was inevitable that a ready-made community of their own kind and Leicester’s reputation as a ‘friendly’ city would draw the majority of Idi Amin’s Asian refugees to the city. The appeal of friends, family and their own community, as well as the promise of jobs, increasingly in Gujarati-owned enterprises, were not the only reasons, it seems. ‘I travelled all over the UK,’ says one African Asian, ‘and I made up my mind if I could choose anywhere I could come that I would settle in Leicester . . .I particularly liked Leicester . . . I was attracted to the flatness of the city.’

Of the 30,000 Asians expelled from Uganda in 1972, 6,000 came to the city. By 1981, the New Commonwealth population was 59,709 in a population of something over 250,000. The arrival of the new settlers in the ’70scoincided with Leicester’s first serious economic downturn. The city’s staple manufactures were being replaced by cheaper goods from abroad: factories were in decline and closing; unemployment was rising. Resentment among the white population burst into open racism and discrimination, at the workplace as well as in the streets. Bolstered by Enoch Powell’s dire warnings of the dangers of unbridled immigration, the National Front targeted Leicester and inserted itself into local politics. In 1976, it won 18 per cent of the vote in local elections; in 1979, in a climate of racial hostility fostered by the NF, Leicester witnessed one of worst racial confrontations in the country. Shocked and shamed out of complacency, it actively began to work at escaping the opprobrium of being labelled the UK’s most racist city.

Why riot when they had money?

Twenty years on, hard work, dedication and commitment from all the communities have ensured that, unlike Oldham, Burnley, Bradford, Southall, Toxteth, Brixton and other places with high immigrant populations, Leicester has not exploded again. A lot of money has been funnelled to minority community projects. Not always the answer, but as Leicester race relations policy officer Paul Winstone said with a certain realism: ‘Leicester City Council poured millions of pounds into ethnic groups. Almost every group could get something like £50,000 more or less just by asking. It wasn’t open bribery, but it most certainly was bribery — and it worked. Why should the leaders riot when they had money and an office?

‘In retrospect, Winstone describes the 1970s as the years of conflict, the 80s as the bribery years and the 90s as the decade of consolidation. But there is more to it than that. Asked why Leicester has become something of a model multiracial city, why, given that the minority population is now around 38 per cent and forecast to become the first majority ethnic community in the UK within the present decade, it doesn’t explode in racial violence, Asians themselves have another explanation. Above all, they point to the fact that they came not from India or Pakistan but from Africa, where they had occupied a privileged position as professionals, businessmen and entrepreneurs. They explode the myth still current in many places that they came with their pockets stuffed with money, but point out that they knew how to do things, did not rely on the local authority for housing or jobs but bought modest properties and eventually built businesses again from scratch. They were not like the uneducated communities of Bangladeshis or funda-mentalist Pakistanis who settled in other places.

Something else too, they say: ‘Remember, this was our second migration. In Africa we already knew what it was to be an unloved but tolerated minority. We knew how to keep our heads down, blend in and get on with people. We’d learned all that before we came here.’

The next generation

Sitting in a local pub, once a down-and-out watering hole but now Asian-owned, bright and cheery, I am struck at the convivial mix of people— Hindus and Muslims, Gujaratis, Sikhs from the Punjab, a few white Englishmen. I am struck by the lack of tension. Are there really no sectarian problems in the city? Jay, a Gujarati from Uganda, explains: ‘Most of us African Asians had never seen India. Unlike the people who came from the subcontinent, its politics and its religious hatreds were nothing to do with us, and so we didn’t carry all that baggage and perpetuate the old quarrels when we got here. The common experience of coming from Africa keeps us close; that is stronger than any religious divide.’ And that, he concludes, is something else that keeps his city, Leicester, from the sectarian extremism that divides other communities.

But this mixture of races and religions is rare. Again, Leicester is not what you see when you meet and talk to the dedicated people who work to bring communities together. The city is as segregated and zoned as it ever was in the days of the old working-class and middle-class divide. That it is largely self-segregated raises the question of how these parallel lives will settle down in the long run when the white English are in a minority, as they already are in most of the city’s schools. Maybe it’s only the next generation, now in the schools, who can answer the question. As one Asian boy put it to me: ‘If there are as many of me as there are of you, we don’t have to be afraid of anything, do we?’

Meanwhile, as people in the city admit, there are challenges to be met. Asians will say they are not yet strongly enough represented in the upper echelons of local government and industry, despite the presence of a growing number of local councillors from the minority communities. And the mix of poverty and ethnicity on local sink estates is creating tensions between black and white not evident in the city itself.

But, more than anything else, representatives on both sides of the ethnic divide fear the import of religious and political extremism from outside. The Hindu nationalist fundamentalist BJP government in India keeps close contacts in the city; following the outbreak of sectarian violence in Gujarat last year, they have been keen to put their version of events to the Gujarati community in Leicester. In much the same way, the Muslims of Leicester are disturbed by the ongoing trial in the city of alleged al-Qaida suspects. They feel a threat from the identification in the media and elsewhere of ‘terrorism’ and Islam. They have become introspective and assertive at the same time, demonstrating a sense of insecurity in a more aggressive assertion of their religion.

But all of this, I am assured more than once, is manageable as long as the city remains aware of it and is sensitive to its handling. There is optimism and a justifiable pride in Leicester’s record. ‘There are things to be done, but compared to other places we are doing well. And that’s official: it said so in the Cantle report that came out after the riots in Oldham and Burnley in 2001.’

 

An exceptional editor: a tribute to Judith Vidal-Hall who reinvented Index magazine after the end of the Cold War

Judith Vidal-Hall was an original. Irrepressible, mischievous, with a delight in challenging convention, she remained wholly dedicated to the causes she championed as a campaigning editor and journalist.

She was a pioneer, bringing the voices of the Global South to a wider audience at the start of her career in journalism for the Guardian’s Third World Review and for the magazine South. It was an interest informed by a passionate fascination with the culture and the politics of countries rarely covered in the mainstream press - and by her extensive travel. She was an independent thinker, guided by her own integrity, curiosity and irreverent wit.

As editor of Index on Censorship from 1993 to 2006, she continued her commitment to introducing a diverse range of writers and artists to a western audience, as well as attracting leading international names. This was a heyday for Index, which was founded during the Cold War and had played a significant role exposing censorship and championing writers from eastern Europe. Alongside the editor-in-chief, Ursula Owen, Judith successfully reinvented the magazine after the fall of communism. “Censorship does not end,” Judith once wrote. “It merely changes its guise and shifts location.” Through Judith and Ursula’s vision and energy, Index became essential reading, offering an alternative view on world affairs through the lens of censorship. They also attracted some of the leading names in journalism to support the magazine - Michael Grade was appointed chair of the board. Judith was early to cover the trends that would transform the landscape for freedom of expression, including the impact of technology, and edited an issue on privacy in 2000. She focused on culture as much as politics and was particularly proud of one of Index’s finest issues dedicated to photography, Underexposed, published in 1999.

She was a striking woman, who always wore eye-catching jewellery that she’d bought on her travels. She had the resonant voice and dramatic presence of an actor and dominated any occasion with the energy of her charisma and commanding, extrovert personality. It was impossible not to be captivated by her.

Judith was born in Leicester in 1938. Her mother Dorothea and father John Alan Bunting had five children. Her father was a bank manager who had served as an officer in the navy during the war on the Atlantic convoys. Judith read history at St Anne’s College, Oxford, where she met her husband Tim Vidal-Hall. They had two daughters, Charlotte and Hatty, and separated in the late 1980s.

She lived in Bangladesh with her family in the 1970s, when her husband Tim was advising the government on industrial relations. It was a life-changing experience for Judith, who became involved in a network supporting health in local villages. Her daughter Hatty recalls that it was a period in Judith’s life that “set a fire alight in her and was the start of things”. The family had an adventurous journey home, driving back through India, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey.

She began working in journalism after meeting the Pakistani journalist Altaf Gauhar who launched the Third World Review with the Guardian and South magazine. Judith became an intrepid traveller. Her friend the writer Penelope Farmer remembers Judith’s stories of visiting Afghanistan after the Russian invasion. “She sat on Russian tanks, sunbathing. She said, ‘I learned to know the difference between the kind of attack where you had to get into the tank very quickly and shelter there, or when you had to get off it equally quickly. The noises were different.’” Judith also recalled meeting Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister in Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war while the city was being bombed.

After leaving Index, Judith continued working as an editor and remained engaged with freedom of expression. She was an active member of the advisory board of Eurozine, a network of European cultural journals and an online magazine, and edited the publication of her old Oxford college, St Anne’s, right up until the last month of her life. She also continued travelling into her 80s. She was diagnosed with terminal cancer in the summer.

Judith was, notably, the lead plaintiff in a legal action against Google for collecting private information without knowledge or consent - Vidal-Hall v Google Inc. The Court of Appeal’s decision in 2015 that damages can be awarded under the Data Protection Act 1998 for distress and anxiety, even if no financial loss is suffered, has been hailed as a landmark ruling. In addition to being a significant victory, Judith’s name will forever be linked with Google, as well as Index if you look her up online. It’s something that she would, I suspect, in her spirit of mischief, have found amusing.

Judith Vidal-Hall, born 24 February 1938 and died on 23 October 2025. She is survived by her daughters Charlotte and Hatty, her grandchildren Hannah, Ruth, Kate and James, her step-grandchildren Billy and Nancy, and her sons-in-law Adam and Colin.

Do the dead have free expression?

This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 3 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Truth, trust and tricksters: Free expression in the age of AI, published on 30 September 2025. Read more about the issue here.

"Don’t speak ill of the dead” is an aphorism that dates back centuries, but what if the dead speak ill of you? Over the past few years there has been a rise in the creation of chatbots trained on the social media and other data of the deceased. These griefbots are deepfakes designed to simulate the likeness and the personality of someone after their death, as though they have been brought back as ghosts.

The concept of the griefbot is not new. Our narratives around AI span centuries and the stories about creating an artificial version of a lost loved one can be found in Greek mythology: Laodameia, for example, distraught at losing her husband Protesilaus during the Battle of Troy, commissioned an exact likeness of him. (It did not end well: she was caught in bed with it. Her father, fearing she was prolonging her grief, burned the wax replica husband and Laodameia killed herself to be with Protesilaus.)

Further back, as US academic Alexis Elder has explored, there are precursors to griefbots in classical Chinese philosophy. The Confucian philosopher Xunzi, writing in the third century BCE, described a ritual where the deceased person was deliberately impersonated via a roleplay to allow loved ones the chance to engage with them once more.

These days, sci-fi likes to surface our contemporary fears and the TV shows have notable storylines warning of the pitfalls of resurrecting our loved ones via technology. In the 2013 Black Mirror episode Be Right Back, a grieving woman uses an AI service to talk with her recently deceased partner, desperate for communication that is ultimately doomed to be illusory.

Grief tech hit the headlines in 2020 when US rapper Kanye West gave his then-wife, Kim Kardashian, a birthday hologram of her dead father.

“Kanye got me the most thoughtful gift of a lifetime,” she wrote on social media. “It is so lifelike and we watched it over and over.”

West likely steered the script, which might’ve been obvious when the hologram told Kim she’d married “the most, most, most, most, most genius man in the whole world – Kanye West”.

While the broader public perception of ghostbots is often one of distaste and concern, those who have engaged with the digital echoes of a lost loved one have been surprisingly positive. When we lose someone we love, we do what we can to fix in place our concept of them. We remember and we memorialise: keepsakes and pictures, speaking their names and telling their stories. Having them with us again through technology is compelling. A Guardian newspaper article in 2023 reported users’ sense of comfort and closure at engaging with chatbots of their dead relatives.

“It’s like a friend bringing me comfort,” said one user.

With a potentially huge new market – grief is universal, after all – come the start-ups. Alongside general tools like ChatGPT are the dedicated software products. The US-based HereAfterAI, which bills itself as a ‘memory app’, allows users to record their thoughts, upload photos and grant access of their content to their loved ones. South Korean company DeepBrain AI claims it can build you an avatar of your dead loved one from just a single photo and a 10 second recording of their voice.

Current technology offers us the ‘could we?’, but what about the ‘should we’? In their 2023 paper, Governing Ghostbots, Edina Harbinja, Lilian Edwards and Marisa McVey flagged a very major problem: that of consent.

“In addition to the harms of emotional dependence, abusive communications and deception for commercial purposes, it is worth considering if there is potential harm to the deceased’s antemortem persona,” they wrote.

If we have some ownership of our data when alive, then should we have similar rights after our death? Creating an avatar of someone who is no longer around to approve it means we are literally putting words in someone’s mouth. Those words might be based on sentences they’ve typed and videos they’ve made but these have been mediated through machine learning, generating an approximation of an existence.

There is, of course, the potential that a desire for a sanitised reminder of the deceased means their words are only permitted to be palatable. Content moderation of AI chatbots might mean censorship or moderation – the same that applies to the large language models (LLMs) that drive them. Views could be watered down, and ideologies reconfigured. There is no true freedom of speech in the literal sense, and no objection available to the lack of it. The dead have no redress.

Conversely, what if posthumous avatars are built for political influence? In India in 2024, a deepfake avatar of a woman who had died more than a decade previously – the daughter of the founder of the Tamil Tigers – was shown in a video urging Tamils to fight for freedom. And in the USA, the parents of Joaquin Oliver, killed in a school shooting in Florida in 2018, created an AI version of their son to speak to journalists and members of Congress to push for gun reform. In both the India and USA cases, the griefbot technology did not exist when these people died and they would have had no way of knowing this could happen, let alone be able to consent to it.

Whether we like it or not, most of us will live on digitally when we die. Our presence is already out there in the form of data – all the social media we’ve ever posted, all the photos and videos of us online, our transaction history, our digital footprints. Right now, there is a lack of clear governance. Digital rights vary dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and AI regulation is in its infancy. Only the EU and China currently have explicit AI legislation in place with moves afoot in other countries including the USA and UK, but not yet in statute. Amidst all of this, global tech companies get to set the agenda. For now, all we have is the hope that we can set our own personal boundaries for posthumous expression before our grief becomes someone else’s commodity.

Israeli society is not a monolith

Earlier this month, a delegation from 60 Israeli peace and reconciliation groups travelled to Ramallah in the West Bank to meet representatives of the Palestinian authority and its president Mahmoud Abbas. The so-called It’s Time coalition pledged support for Palestinian statehood and presented an invitation to a People’s Peace Summit in Israel scheduled for May 2026.

“Hope begins today, and now we must ensure that we continue to implement peace,” said Abbas. “Every Israeli who believes in peace is our brother.” He also expressed his sympathies to Yonatan Zeigen, son of the peace activist Vivian Silver who was killed during 7 October 2023 Hamas massacre.

Zeigen was representing the Parents Circle-Families Forum, a joint Israeli-Palestinian organisation of more than 800 bereaved family members who have lost loved ones during the conflict.

The visit was an indication that Israel’s beleaguered peace movement, though battered by years of stalemate, is not yet dead. Israeli civil society has been under direct attack from Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and activist organisations find themselves characterised as “foreign agents”.

A law introduced in 2016 requires all NGOs which receive more than 50 percent of their funding from foreign sources to declare that fact and there are plans to introduce an 80 percent tax on foreign funding. A new ICC Cooperation Bill would make providing testimony on war crimes to the International Criminal Court an offence.

And yet, throughout the war in Gaza, thousands took to the streets of the Israeli capital Tel Aviv to demonstrate their opposition to the Israeli government, an end to the conflict and the return of the hostages.

Among the most high profile organisations taking part in the peace delegation to Ramallah was Standing Together, whose activities Index reported on at the beginning of the latest conflict. The NGO was founded in 2015 to mobilise Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel in pursuit of peace, equality and justice.

In May this year Standing Together director Alon-Lee Green was arrested for blocking a road at a demonstration on the Gaza border. Protesters wore t-shirts with the slogan “Stop the horrors in Gaza” and carried pictures of babies killed in air strikes. Green told the BBC from house arrest: "I think it's obvious that you can see an awakening within the Israeli public. You can see that more and more people are taking a position."

Following the ceasefire, Standing Together has turned to supporting Palestinians under threat from settlers in the West Bank and the Israeli military that protect them. In particular, the organisation has worked with Palestinian villagers to bring in the olive harvest.

In an account in UK far left newspaper The Morning Star, Uri Weltmann, national field organiser for Standing Together described how activists had witnessed settlers beating Palestinians gathering olives in the village of Deir Ammar. He wrote: “While the world has its eyes on the Gaza Strip and the atrocities that our government commits there, we mustn’t let go of the fact that settler violence is on the rise in the West Bank, and action is needed to be taken there as well.”

Daniel Randall, a British member of the steering group of UK Friends of Standing Together told Index that Standing Together’s visit to Ramallah in the aftermath of the ceasefire was an important symbolic act. He believed activists represented the real opposition while politicians voted though plans for the annexation of occupied Palestinian land.

“The visit demonstrates that Israelis campaigning against occupation are the real partners for peace,” he said.
He added that it was important to show the world that there were Israeli citizens opposed to what Netanyahu’s government is doing.

“There is an ideologically constructed idea that Israeli society is a monolith. We are trying to disrupt that. There are dissenting voices that have a radical vision.”

Standing Together has its critics in the boycott movement who do not believe it goes far enough. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) for instance has issued repeated calls to no-platform Standing Together, which it accuses of the “insidious normalisation and whitewashing of Israel’s genocide against 2.3 million Palestinians in the illegally occupied Gaza Strip.”

In a statement in January the Palestinian members of Standing Together’s leadership said in riposte: “The fight for Palestinian liberation is multi-faceted. As a movement operating within Israel, we took upon ourselves a specific role: to shift Israeli public opinion away from supporting policy that maintains and deepens the subjugation of Palestinians.”

Index does not support the academic and cultural boycott, but respects the free speech rights of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK