OPINION: The safety dance – when ‘Security concerns’ means ‘Keep Jews out’

This week, anti-Israel protestors have been targeting the Vuelta a Espana, Spain’s premier cycling race. One of the stages of the race had to be cut short due to the actions of these activists, who have turned out in force because one of the teams, Israel-Premier Tech, is owned by an Israeli-Canadian businessman.

But the real story here is not the anti-Israel protests, which have become ubiquitous across the Western world, even as other countries are mysteriously given a free pass (the UAE Team Emirates cycling team is not protested, for example, despite considerable evidence that the UAE is closely involved with genocidal acts currently taking place in Sudan).

No, the issue worth looking at most closely here is the reaction of some of the other teams taking part in the Spanish race. Because there are reports that several of the other teams are pushing for the Israel-linked team to withdraw, and the reason – or more bluntly, the excuse – being given is “security risks”.

Those two words are becoming wearisomely familiar to both Israelis and Jews in general – wearisome not because security is unimportant, but because the words are being used as a cudgel. To put it bluntly – Jews in general and Israelis in particular know more about “security risks” than many other people.

In the diaspora, our schools and community centres are surrounded by high fences and guards. Our synagogues often have volunteer rotas of congregants who interrupt their prayers to take their turns standing watch. In Israel, every new building has a shelter and the entire country is trained in what to do when the sirens sound, signalling incoming rockets or missiles. So unless a venue here is literally receiving bomb threats or something equally disturbing, citing “security risks” tends to see a raising of sceptical eyebrows.

In the last few years, a new phenomenon has emerged – the weaponisation of safety. An organisation, or a location, decides to shut its doors to a specific group of people, with the given reason being safety concerns.

Not the fear of the safety of those people who are being excluded, you understand – but rather the perceived worry about discomfort, or awkwardness, experienced by those others present who might have to deal with a situation in which that organisation or venue is picketed by an angry mob. Far easier to just ensure that people connected, however tenuously, to the target of the mob’s ire are disinvited – or simply not invited in the first place.

Jewish and Israeli people have not been the only targets of this weaponisation of safety – but since 7 October 2023, we have come to know it all too well.

In November 2023, a planned exhibition about Jewish culture was cancelled by a London council over “personal safety” fears. Last year, a planned show by an Orthodox Jewish Israeli singer was cancelled by a north London venue, due to “security concerns surrounding non-participants of the event”.

This summer, British Jewish comedians were told at short notice that the venue which had previously welcomed their performances as part of the Edinburgh Fringe would not host them again this year, with the pair saying that “safety concerns” had been given as the reason. In July, an Israeli DJ was told at short notice that he would not be allowed to perform at the Tomorrowland Festival in Belgium. The reason given? “Security concerns”.

And now this has reached the world of cycling.

The insidious nature of this excuse is obvious when one takes a step back and considers it. Very few institutions want to come right out and say that they don’t want Israelis, Zionists or any but a handful of Jews who have passed their strenuous purity tests to attend their events.

Apart from making them look like howling bigots, there’s also a fair chance that such actions might breach equality laws. But safety? No venue or organisation wants to look as if it is shirking due diligence when it comes to analysing security risks. By using that excuse, a venue can instead present itself as upstanding and responsible.

Prejudiced? No, we’re conscientious.

Of course, you the reader can analyse such examples for yourself and reach your own conclusions as to the true reason for such a cancellation. Did the venue or organisation approach the Jewish or Israeli individuals in question and say something along the lines of: “Look, we know there are likely to be protests, which means we will need extra security in place and this is not a cost we feel able to field alone, so let’s discuss how we can work together to provide the extra security to make it work?” Or did they just abruptly cancel the event, with “security concerns” given as the reason? Find the answer to that and you’ll most likely have found your answer as to the real motivation.

Venues and organisations will no doubt continue to use this magic two-word formula to try and avoid being the targets of mob actions. But that’s not how mobs work – give into them once, and they’ll inevitably be back for more once they know you can be intimidated. And in the meantime, realise that Israelis, and most Jews, know what your “security concerns” mantra really means – that you’re throwing them under the bus in pursuit of an easier life.