Ed Torsney writes that Andy Burnham’s latest push to protect Israel in schools is at odds with the duty of schools to teach children to evaluate evidence, assess truth – and with ‘British values’ themselves:

The tension is real, and it plays out in UK schools as a conflict between two frameworks that pull in opposite directions. The government’s ‘ Fundamental British Values ‘ (FBV) require schools to promote democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance. The so-called ‘IHRA working definition of antisemitism’, which the government is urging schools to adopt, includes illustrative examples that classify legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitic.

Since Israel has been found to be committing genocide by a UN commission of inquiry and an array of genocide scholars and human rights groups, the consequence of upholding British Values in the context of Israel means teachers and pupils will be guilty of antisemitism according to the IHRA and Department for Education guidelines – introduced this week via ‘The Bell Report’. This means teachers will be sacked and students will be sanctioned or expelled, in both cases for legitimately criticising Israel and the genocide it is perpetrating in Palestine and Lebanon.

British Values vs IHRA: where the conflict Lies

‘FBV’ commit schools to fostering individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance. This means pupils should be able to engage critically with political issues, including the conduct of foreign states. The government’s own response to the Bell report on antisemitism in schools acknowledges this balance, stating explicitly that “criticism of the policies or actions of the Government of Israel is not, in itself, antisemitic”.

The IHRA definition, however, is accompanied by 11 illustrative examples, of which seven relate to speech about Israel. These include characterising Israel’s existence as a “racist endeavour”, applying “double standards”, or comparing “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”. Critics, including noted legal experts and the IHRA’s author himself , argue that these examples “risk conflating critiques of Israel’s long-standing settler-colonial practices with antisemitism” and suppressing free and accurate speech on Israel. The National Education Union has warned that adopting the IHRA definition risks “blurring the line between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli government” and could shut down legitimate classroom discussion.

The logical friction is therefore this: a school promoting FBV is expected to encourage pupils to evaluate evidence and form independent judgements, including about states accused of grave crimes. But a school applying the IHRA examples may treat certain criticisms of Israel—particularly those that question its foundational character or draw historical analogies—as prima facie evidence of antisemitism. This creates a chilling effect on precisely the kind of critical enquiry that FBV purport to cultivate.

So we can freely apply our “British Values” to any country, except Israel. This in itself creates a double standard where Israel is concerned and is itself therefore ‘antisemitism’ according to the IHRA definition.

The genocide finding and the “double standards” problem

The UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded in September 2025 that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, finding reasonable grounds that Israeli authorities committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention. This finding is not a fringe view; it comes from a UN-appointed investigative body.

Against that backdrop, a student who argues that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide is making a claim consistent with a formal UN finding. There is no lack of impartiality in that conclusion. Under the IHRA examples, applying “double standards” to Israel is listed as a potential indicator of antisemitism. If a pupil is taught that holding Israel to standards applied to other states – the Genocide Convention – is antisemitic, while the UN itself has applied the Convention to Israel, the school faces a contradiction in its messaging: it cannot simultaneously teach respect for international law and the rule of law (a ‘British Value’) and treat the application of that law to Israel as a warning sign of prejudice.

How schools are navigating the ambiguity

The government’s guidance theoretically leaves room for nuance. It distinguishes between criticism of Israeli government policy (not antisemitic) and antisemitic ‘tropes’, conspiracy theories, or collective blame of Jewish people (antisemitic). The IHRA definition itself also states that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. But there are a number of problems with this in practice.

One practical problem is that the IHRA examples sit alongside the ‘definition’. In a busy classroom or a stressed safeguarding decision, the examples can operate as a checklist rather than a nuanced legal standard. This is how they are already used by Israel’s supporters – the “may be” of the IHRA is ignored and treated instead as “is antisemitic”.

The National Education Union’s concern is that this will produce a “chilling grip” stifling discussion of Israel’s genocide and mass murder of children in Gaza. The government’s counter-position is that schools must not promote partisan political views and must give pupils a balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints—but “balance” is easier to mandate than to define when one of the opposing viewpoints is backed by a UN genocide finding and the other is Israeli propaganda and a blind refutation of that finding whilst the killing continues unabated.

Summary

‘British Values’ and the IHRA ‘definition’ are therefore inherently incompatible. IHRA’s Israel-focused examples are designed to pathologise the criticisms that an FBV education should equip pupils to make, particularly when those criticisms align with findings from UN bodies. Schools are left to resolve, case by case, whether a pupil’s critique of Israel is “similar to that levelled against any other country” or falls into one of the IHRA’s categories – a judgment that carries disciplinary and safeguarding consequences but lacks any clear, principled line that satisfies both frameworks simultaneously.

In practice the IHRA ‘definition’ of antisemitism cannot be adopted by schools whilst keeping ‘Fundamental British Values’ intact.