This is a guest post by Abdullah Noorudeen from Coolness of Hind.

We recently published an exposé unveiling how Star Academies CEO, Hamid Patel, has positioned himself as a Zionist collaborator. As expected, the defensive flailing across social media was swift. The responses, in their lack of substance and creativity, tend to fall into three familiar categories:

1. “It’s slander!”
2. “Life is complex; you simply don’t understand the nuance.”
3. “This is just a conspiracy theory!”

In other words: Deny, deflect, and dismiss, the holy trinity of damage control.

One particularly vacuous “rebuttal” has been making the rounds on X. Readers can view the document here.

The document fails (spectacularly) to refute any of the claims we have made. Bizarrely, however, the Patel protector:

• Frames Patel’s collaboration with Zionists and neocons as a perfectly benign exercise in government engagement (Conclusion) and an attempt to “integrate” into British society (Rebuttal 1);
• Diminishes the vile records of Jack Straw and Michael Gove by casting their actions and views as merely “complex positions” (Rebuttal 2);
• Admits that Patel works with Zionist neocons on “integration” and “counter-extremism”, both buzzwords born from Zionist neocon agendas that have been damaging to Muslims (Rebuttal 2);
• Downplays the Zionism of the Holocaust Educational Trust (Rebuttal 3), and outright denies that the Pears Foundation is a Zionist organisation (Rebuttal 4);
• Whitewashes PREVENT in a factually untenable way(Rebuttal 5);
• Claims that the anti-Palestine Abraham Accords aims to “promote peace in the Middle East” (Rebuttal 6).

Taken together, this supposed “rebuttal” reads less like a defence and more like hasbara drafted at BICOM. Or at least by someone desperate for an invite.

Since there is no factual or evidence-based reasoning presented as a counter to our claims, there is nothing needed on our part in the way of a response.

However, in the public interest, particularly for Muslim parents seeking clarity about the reality of Star Academies and its obliging CEO Yes-Sir Hamid Patel, we will use the non-rebuttal as a basis from which we will elaborate further on our original claims.

RELATED: The Zionist Collaborator “Mufti” Hamid Patel and the Post-Gaza Plan

Comment on Rebuttal 1

The so-called rebuttal states that we have accused Patel of being a “Muslim Zionist”, and there is a lack of evidence of “collaboration with Israel or Zionism” (or seems to suggest this, the section is somewhat poorly worded).

To be precise, our assertion is far clearer and far more specific: Hamid Patel is a Zionist collaborator. And unlike the rebuttal, we come bearing evidence:

1. Patel signed a letter praising anti-Muslim neocon Zionist “Israel” supporter Michael Gove.
2. His schools’ work with Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) and the invitation of Karen Pollock the Chief Executive of HET, who is a staunch pro-“Israel” activist. She has been described as a “key combatant in Israel’s media war” and propagated atrocity propaganda that has contributed to the genocide of Palestinians. She is also a director of the UK Media Research Centre, which pays people to “write pro-Israeli articles”.
3. Working with Pears Foundation, a “pro-Israel” financier of Islamophobic and Zionist causes. Sources, here, here, here, and here.

It further states:

“Patel’s professional engagement with government organizations and educators should be seen as an attempt to integrate Muslims more effectively into British society, not as an endorsement of Zionism.”

What kind of “engagement” and “integration”, exactly, demands ingratiating and partnering with neocons and Zionists (clear and open enemies of Allah), fulfilling their agendas by actively implementing and promoting damaging anti-Muslim policies like PREVENT, and brainwashing Muslim children to celebrate the British empire and to join the British Army and British intelligence (for sources, see our Concluding Remarks, below)?

The Zionists and neocons Patel “engages” are the very architects and advocates of Muslim-slaughtering wars, cheerleaders of genocidal campaigns against Palestinians, and unwavering supporters of the Zionist terror regime currently menacing Masjid Al-Aqsa.

If this is integration, it is of the most abject and humiliating kind; a truly obsequious, sycophantic submission dressed up as strategy.

Comment on Rebuttal 2

It states:

“The article criticizes Patel for working with Michael Gove and Jack Straw, labeling them as “Zionist enablers” and accusing Patel of being complicit in their view.”

The claim is false. We do not accuse Patel of being complicit in the views of Straw and Gove. We criticise him for his continued collaboration with them, and, in the case of Gove, praising and assisting him (the author admits this point below. For more details on Patel’s assistance of Gove see here). Incidentally, the term “Zionist enablers” is not used at all in the article. We do call Patel a Zionist collaborator and Gove an “arch-Islamophobe, Zionist hardliner, and unapologetic enabler of genocide”.

The author of the “rebuttal” then seems to diminish the frankly evil actions and views of Straw and Gove as mere “complex positions”.

Let us dispense with this spin.

In the case of Straw:

• Driving the Iraq war, which has led to the death of over a million, is not a complex position. It is an indefensibly bloodthirsty one.
• Vilifying niqabi Muslim women, a minority within a minority is not a complex position. It is an Islamophobic one that emboldened bigoted thugs to attack Muslim women on British streets.
• Blaming an entire culture – Pakistani Muslims – for “grooming gangs” is not a complex position. It is a crude, populist, racist, and Islamophobic one that has also led to attacks on Muslims.

Jack Straw does not sit on a fence of “complexity”. He sits atop Islamophobia and a pile of Muslim corpses.

Likewise in the case of Michael Gove. His support for extreme “shock and awe” violence in Fallujah, the historic “Israeli” massacres in Jenin, Zionism, “Israel” and its genocide, his attacks on Islam as “extremist”, his targeting of Muslims, his oversight of the Muslim subversive Quilliam Foundation. These are not “complex positions”. They are straightforward violent ones dripping in enmity and hatred of Islam and Muslims.

Referring to all of these as “complex positions” is like describing arson as a complex approach to heating.

The “rebuttal” continues:

“Patel’s work with them has focused on improving education in the UK, particularly around issues of integration, counter-extremism, and quality schooling.”

This quote represents an explicit admission by the author that Patel works with Zionist neocons to help deliver “integration” and “counter-extremism”, both buzzwords born from Zionist neocon pre-crime agenda that has been harmful to Muslims (substantiated in the section on Rebuttal 5, below, and here).

To be clear, collaboration with Zionists openly supporting “Israel” is a harm to Islam and Muslims and an aid to the Zionist entity since it aids normalisation. Zionist billionaires connected to “Israeli” officials, such as the Adelsons and Haim Saban (see also here) have poured their fortunes into countering the delegitimization of “Israel”.

Within Muslim circles, we need only look to Abdullah bin Bayyah and Hamza Yusuf and witness how their conferences, where they intermingle with Zionists under the ruse of “peace” and “dialoguing”, have only served to normalise relations with Zionists and “Israel”. (For more on the process of normalisation, see here. For more on the Zionist strategy to use mundane initiatives to normalise Zionists as a form of soft power, see the section on Rebuttal 4.)

Outside of the circle of these Abraham Accords, “Israel”-normalising “scholars”, no upright Islamic scholar of this ummah permits normalisation with the Zionist entity and its representatives (see the statement of Palestinian Islamic scholars, here). It follows that it is dangerously foolish to openly collaborate with and praise Zionists who publicly profess their support of the Zionist terror regime since it normalises them. The collaboration functions precisely to serve the Zionist agenda of increasing acceptance of “Israel” among Muslims and neutralising resistance against the occupation of Palestine.

When figures like Patel, occupying an influential leadership position as a “Mufti” and educationalist, engage in such collaborations, it acts as a dangerous signal: that partnering and working with Zionists is not only “normal” but respectable, threatening the interests of the ummah. This is precisely the goal of Zionist normalisation attempts.

If Hazrat cannot grasp this agenda, even now, as “Israeli” bombs shred to pieces tens of thousands of Palestinians while the Arab normalising states look the other way, then we suggest it is time for him to relinquish his leadership position and maybe spend some time in muraqabah. Some deep reflection is several years overdue.

It’s simple: Don’t endorse them. Avoid working with them. Zionists are a red line.

RELATED: Refuting a Deviant Promoter of “Abrahamic” Religion

Comment on Rebuttal 3

This point attempts a meek defence of Star Academies’ partnership with Holocaust Educational Trust (HET), claiming it is merely a well-meaning effort to educate children “about the dangers of racism, anti-Semitism, and genocide”. Patel, the author tells us, is merely sharing in this history, not endorsing “any political regime”.

So politically deracinated is the author of this rebuttal that he or she cannot bring themselves to name the “political regime” in question. God forbid the Zionists discover a Patel defender claiming Patel may not endorse “Israel”!

First, we have already shown in our first section above, that HET is a Zionist organisation and its director is a genocide apologist who promotes atrocity propaganda on behalf of “Israel”. Second, one does not need to join hands with the arsonist to warn about the dangers of fire.

One can oppose racism, antisemitism, and genocide without hopping into bed with Zionists who act as PR agents for a genocidal regime committing all three.

Third, the rebuttal presents a strawman of our position. We do not state Patel is endorsing “Israel”. To reiterate (again), the problem is with a public Muslim figure collaborating with Zionists and Zionist organisations, which normalises such engagements, Zionists themselves, and their propaganda.

No “decent” human being would choose to collaborate with Zionists.

Comment on Rebuttal 4

This particular “rebuttal” reveals either a shocking naivety or a wilful attempt to mask the reality of the Pears Foundation and Trevor Pears.

It states:

“The Pears Foundation is a philanthropic organization focused on funding projects in various sectors, including education, health, and social justice. The author’s attempt to link the Pears Foundation’s work to a “Zionist agenda” is misleading. It’s true that the Pears Foundation has supported initiatives that promote education and counter-extremism, but accusing them of advancing a political agenda undermines the valuable work they do.”

Of course, this view is entirely untrue.

We quote the following from a reference we cited in our article on Hamid Patel:

“The Pears Family Charitable Foundation – A Zionist family foundation, which has also donated to Islamophobic think tanks like Policy Exchange and Civitas, to normalising Solutions Not Sides, Forward Thinking, Mitzvah Day and the key “Israel”-government-initiated normalisation grouping as The Abraham Fund Initiatives. It has funded the United Jewish “Israel” Appeal (UJIA), the main fundraiser for the Apartheid state in the UK and also the extremist Chabad Lubavitch sect.”

To this, we added in our article that Trevor Pears has been a driving force behind both Conservative Friends of Israel and BICOM, two heavyweight “Israel” lobby groups shaping the UK political landscape in “Israel’s” favour. On how BICOM has pushed “Israel” advocacy in UK politics, see here.

Furthermore, the Pears Foundation has also funnelled £1 million into the anti-Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) project known as BIRAX or Britain Israel Research and Academic Exchange Partnership. BIRAX is a strategic hasbara vehicle, birthed by the British Council in tandem with the British Embassy in “Israel” and funded by private pro-“Israel” donors. It was launched by the prime ministers of “Israel” and Britain.

Yet Patel’s defenders remain either blissfully ignorant or wilfully blind to “Israel’s” sophisticated hasbara machine and its campaigns to reduce the delegitimization of the Zionist terror regime.

Sewing “Israel” normalisation into seemingly apolitical activities is the blueprint. David Weinberg, a figure closely tied to “Israeli” officials, advocates for insidious indoctrination in the form of embedding “Israel’s” messaging into media programmes that “highlight the non-political faces of Israel in culture, sports, technology, and medicine”.

Pears Foundation, with funding of Islamophobic, Zionist, neoconservative organisations and “Israel” normalising projects along with non-political philanthropic work fits into this model.

The rebuttal states:

“Furthermore, the funding provided by Pears Foundation does not equate to a blind endorsement of any political stance. There’s no evidence to suggest that Patel is promoting a Zionist ideology through his work with the Pears Foundation.”

Yet another flimsy strawman. Nowhere do we allege that Patel endorses Zionist ideology. What we do state quite plainly (again) is that he happily collaborates with Zionists and in doing so publicly, sends the message that it is “normal” and respectable to work with them. This act serves to normalise Zionists, fulfilling their agendas.

We repeat: collaborations with such Zionists are untenable for any Muslim with a moral conscience still intact.

As for Patel’s work with the Pears Foundation, our previous article demonstrates how the partnership is facilitating a Zionist mind-control agenda. We comment on this further in the section on Rebuttal 5, below.

RELATED: Amjad Taha: The UAE/Israel Mouthpiece

Comment on Rebuttal 5

The document’s fifth “rebuttal” rebuts nothing in the article and, in fact, confirms our statement that Patel was an (early) adopter of PREVENT. It states:

“Patel’s engagement with PREVENT has been focused on ensuring that students receive the necessary guidance and support to avoid extremism in all its forms.”

In other words, Patel has ensured children are indoctrinated with PREVENT propaganda.

Shockingly, the non-rebuttal proceeds to whitewash PREVENT in a factually incorrect way. It reads like PREVENT-apologia published by the neocon Policy Exchange.

It states:

“PREVENT’s purpose is to safeguard young people from extremism of all kinds, not to target Muslims specifically… The PREVENT program, in its ideal form, aims to protect vulnerable individuals from all forms of radicalization, whether religious, political, or otherwise.”

As highlighted in 2016, the Islamophobic Zionist neocon think-tank, the hate-financed Henry Jackson Society, published a report on how to spin away criticism of PREVENT. One of its suggestions was to recast the public surveillance programme as “safeguarding”.

However, as we demonstrate with references, PREVENT is not only a propaganda campaign and an intelligence-gathering tool originally designed to target Muslims, it is also antithetical to the principles of safeguarding.

It is an undeniable fact that PREVENT is an intelligence-gathering tool:

• GCHQ (i.e., the British intelligence agency Star Academies has links to) is involved in PREVENT activities.
• Quilliam Foundation founder Ed Husain has admitted that PREVENT was gathering intelligence on people not committing terror offences.
• Amber Rudd, while Home Secretary, stated that most intelligence comes from PREVENT.
• Channel mentors share individual profiles they create with the police.
• Detective Inspector Khizra Dhindsa also casually talked about gathering intelligence through PREVENT in 2012. The approach, she advised, needed to be tactful: “Intelligence should be a by-product of effective engagement, not the sole motivation behind it. If you just go out looking for intelligence, you won’t find it.”

(A list of sources can be found here.)

On PREVENT’s anti-Muslim discrimination, the 2022 academic report People’s Review of Prevent similarly found that PREVENT is:

• Islamophobic;
• Discriminatory against Muslims;
• Relies on profiling Muslims; and
• Undermines safeguarding.

Furthermore, the Zionist neocon William Shawcross, in his 2023 review into PREVENT, reinforced the fact that PREVENT is not safeguarding.

The “rebuttal” asserts:

“The suggestion that PREVENT is part of a “Zionist” conspiracy is not only baseless but also dangerous.”

PREVENT is underpinned by the doctrine of pre-emption – the idea that a threat is neutralised before it emerges. The ideological framework was originally championed by Zionist neocon Paul Wolfowitz – a prominent neocon “Israel” advocate working in the Pentagon during the Bush era. His idea became the pre-emptive perpetual war Bush Doctrine.

The British Zionist neocons went to work to apply this principle in the form of PREVENT. Kundnani records:^[1]

“Dean Godson, a neoconservative who whilst research director at the Policy Exchange think tank had a strong influence on Prevent policy, wrote a 2006 article in The Times in which he called for a revival of such cold war techniques in the War on Terror.”

Let us also not forget that Policy Exchange was co-founded by none other than Patel’s buddy, the Zionist neocon Michael Gove.

On the contrary, it is dangerous to mislead Muslims about the reality of PREVENT and how Zionists – those who cheerlead the murder and dispossession of Palestinians – have shaped it.

(For a more a detailed account of all this, see here.)

RELATED: Israel’s Post-Gaza Plan: The CVE-Driven, Pro-Israeli “Abrahamic Family House”

Comment on Rebuttal 6

The “rebuttal” states:

“The article presents Patel’s actions as a betrayal of Muslims, simply because he works with mainstream British institutions.”

Yet again we are faced with another clumsily obvious strawman. We repeat (from our article!):

“Collaborating with Zionist neocons and organisations is not a “strategy” or some deluded rendition of “hikmah”. It is betrayal, plain and simple.”

Our position is very clear and specific.

Patel is not required to collaborate with or praise Michael Gove, Jack Straw, Karen Pollock, and Trevor Pears. These are not neutral “mainstream” figures in government. They are ideological foot soldiers for projects that have left Muslim lands devastated and Muslim lives dehumanised. But Patel, of course, chooses to sip tea with them as they pat him on the back.

As such, we stand by our statement. There is over a decade-long pattern of Patel ingratiating with the neocons and Zionists who are actively undermining Muslims in the West, helping them deliver their damaging agendas, and now, facilitating Zionist brainwashing plans of the genocidal Zionist regime in Palestine.

(We documented this pattern in detail in 2018. Readers can see here, here, and here. We will cover a summary in our Concluding Remarks, below.)

Such collaboration with Zionists who actively support “Israel” and undermine Islam, Muslims, and Palestinian activism, here in Britain and abroad, is an act of betrayal.

Comment on Rebuttal 7

Like previous “rebuttals”, this particular one similarly conjures claims not found in our article before attempting to tear them down.

Disturbingly, it regurgitates the all-too-familiar “Israeli” propaganda that the Abraham Accords aims to “promote peace in the Middle East”. These are the very same Accords that are designed to bypass Palestine, de-Islamise the Muslim world, and hand Al-Aqsa Masjid on a platter to the Zionist terror regime. It has emboldened the Zionists to continue piling up Palestinian bodies in Gaza and the West Bank. It is a genocide-enabling Zionist project.

This point alone is enough to dismiss this Patel defender as uninformed, or worse, a Zionist.

The “rebuttal” declares:

“The article links Patel to the Abraham Accords… There is no evidence to suggest that Patel is involved in any way with the Abraham Accords.”

Nowhere in our article does it make the claim that Patel is signing treaties in Abu Dhabi or shaking hands in Rabat. Rather, we state that:

“Patel seems to be spearheading an indoctrination campaign straight out of the Abraham Accords normalisation playbook.”

Perhaps Patel defenders have comprehension issues. To help them further, we will elaborate on this sentence below.

The “rebuttal” continues:

“The article… accuses him of facilitating Zionist ‘mind control’ in schools. This is pure fantasy… The notion that educating students about different global issues, including the history of Israel and Palestine, is part of a Zionist conspiracy is not only absurd but also damaging. Education should be about fostering critical thinking, not stifling it by promoting one-sided, extremist views.”

It is interesting to note how there is an attempt to deflect Zionist involvement through the language of counter-extremism and PREVENT. The well-worn implication is that a principled criticism of Zionists and their involvement in shaping certain spheres must be “one-sided” and “extremist”.

The response to this distraction away from the Zionist agenda can be found in our article on Hamid Patel. We will handhold Patel proponents through a more enriched version of the response once more.

As we covered in the first part of our series on the Abraham Accords and the post-Gaza plan, in November 2023, Netanyahu outlined in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal his “prerequisites for peace”. One of these prerequisites entailed “deradicalizing” Palestinian society as per the post-WWII initiatives of Germany and Japan. Part of his agenda was to use education to indoctrinate “Israeli” lies concerning October 7^th and normalise the acceptance of “Israel”.

In our final piece in the series, we outlined how “Israel’s” neocon proxies were helping to implement this very same Netanyahu post-Gaza plan at the policy level in the West.

We exposed how the UK government was planning a three-year-long (FY24-25 to FY26-27) indoctrination programme to develop and implement resources, “including on the situation in Israel following the terrorist attacks on 7th October, which tackle mis- and disinformation, and can be used in student engagement activity”.

We exposed how two notable organisations were already using the interfaith/ “dialoguing” strategy to push “Israel”-normalisation indoctrination in schools:

1. Solutions Not Sides (SNS); and
2. Forum for Discussion of Israel and Palestine or FODIP.

(The implication was that they would be likely involved in such a project in the future.)

SNS and FODIP both work together, while FODIP works with Roots, an organisation seeking to normalise settlers in Palestine. Both are bankrolled by the Pears Foundation. Both have been funded by the Home Office’s Building a Stronger Britain Together (BSBT) fund, “which is used by the British state to target Muslim communities for surveillance, infiltration, and to stifle Muslim political activism”. Both are connected to the Zionist terror regime. And, post-October 7, both have been endorsed by PREVENT teams producing resources on “the Middle East” to indoctrinate children with a slant that sanitises and minimises “Israeli” aggression against Palestinians.

We also drew attention to the fact that the buzzwords “misinformation” and “disinformation” along with “conspiracy theory” were core themes in the review on social cohesion, penned by the ever-obliging neocon stooge Sara Khan and endorsed by Patel’s buddy Michael Gove. In conducting the review, Khan consulted SNS and FODIP on the topic of Palestine and how the “conflict” is “fuelling division”. Notably, the report proposes that the government proactively indoctrinates local communities against “conspiracy theories and disinformation”. As those who endured the grim 2014 Trojan Horse inquisition will attest, there is nothing more comforting than the government acting as the Ministry of Truth.

Now, in our exposé on Patel, we revealed how the Patel-Pears led Commission into Countering Online Conspiracies in Schools (launched in April 2024) likewise reproduces the lexical focuses on mis-/disinformation and conspiracy theories. We also highlighted that the project was overseen by Pears Foundation’s director Amy Braier, who works closely with the Pears family and has overseen the Foundation’s investments into Islamophobic, and pro-Israeli organisations including SNS, and that among its advisors are two people from SNS. The advisory also has others with a track record in pro-Palestine censorship and counter-extremism crusades.

In other words, the same financiers and functionaries who censor pro-Palestine activism and whitewash and normalise the image of “Israel” are steering the Patel-Pears project.

Given the Zionist entanglement in the Commission and the well-documented history of pro-Palestine censorship of the Zionist actors involved, we stated that the Commission’s recommendation for Religious Studies curricula to “address antisemitic conspiracy theories” should be read in its proper context. Namely, as part of the Zionist strategy to control the narrative, ensuring only a sanitised, pro-“Israel” version enters the classroom.

Now, the process of entrenching the Zionist narrative of October 7 as the unassailable “official” account while dismissing any countervailing facts as mere conspiracy theories is already well underway.

For example, the aforementioned Gove-approved Khan review cites the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, indicating its influence on UK policy. ISD is a pro-Israeli neoconservative organisation that is also linked to Gove through the organisation’s anti-Arab racist, pro-“Israeli” founder, George Weidenfeld. As we have documented, Star Academies has subjected Muslim students to counter-extremism material that cites ISD resources.

UPDATE 25/03/2025: The fact that ISD has already published an “Israel”-favouring version of events is most disconcerting given there is a direct link between ISD and the report published by the Patel-Pears commission. The report uses the neocon Zionist ISD as an authoritative source on tackling “conspiracies” (p.16, p.117):

In October 2024, ISD published an article taking “stock of narratives which seek to deny, distort and justify the events” surrounding October 7. It similarly uses the language of “mis- and disinformation” and “conspiracy theories” to highlight some alleged exaggerations concerning “Israel’s” involvement in killing its own citizens on October 7. It also happens to completely ignore the avalanche of false “Israeli” atrocity propaganda perpetrated around the same event.

In January of this year, the Knesset passed a law mandating a five-year jail time for the “minimising or denying” of October 7. This is most disturbing given that, on the 5^th of February, during Netanyahu’s visit to the Oval Office, both Netanyahu and Trump repeated the false atrocity propaganda that Hamas “burned babies alive” and raped women.

Back in the UK, earlier this month (March), the UK-Israel All Party Parliamentary Group published a report titled “The 7 October Parliamentary Commission Report”. The report makes the unsubstantiated claim that “Hamas terrorists gang-raped women”. Notably absent is any reference to the IDF’s use of the Hannibal Directive to murder its own citizens. Yet, the Patel-supporting Spectator sought to present the publication as a “permanent parliamentary record” to ensure that “the events of 7 October cannot be distorted by history’s revisionists”. Chillingly, the article proposes that the propaganda report be distributed to schools.

Such “official” documents slide neatly into the curricular gaps the Patel-Pears Commission aims to fill, with its recommendation to “build on existing content to address antisemitic conspiracy theories”.

For all these reasons, we stand by our claim that Patel is facilitating the Zionist post-Gaza mind control plan.

RELATED: Israel’s Post-Gaza Plan: Deepening Israel-UAE’s “Abrahamic” Authoritarianism in the UK

Concluding Remarks

Aside from the usual deflections “It’s all conspiracy theories!” and “It’s all paranoia!” without presenting any counter-evidence against any of our claims, the Patel proponent closes with a claim that Patel’s work is based on “pragmatism, not betrayal”. Furthermore, it spins away working with Zionists who PR for “Israel” and support its genocide as benign engagement with “mainstream institutions” and “government institutions”.

Except that:

• It is not necessary to champion an anti-Muslim PREVENT programme. PREVENT’s application can be legally minimised and campaigned against. It does not need promoting on X (Twitter).
• It is not necessary to become a poster boy for Michael Gove’s neocon education agenda.
• It is not necessary to praise the Palestine genocide cheerleader Gove at time when he was a) waging a cold war against Islam and Muslim teachers; and b) as major teaching unions condemned him and over 100,000 signatures had already called for his resignation.
• It is not necessary for schools to implement Cadet Forces and militarise Muslim children in alignment with the counter-extremism agenda, a point which this Patel proponent is curiously silent about.
• It is not necessary for schools to promote the British Army to Muslim children.
• It is not necessary to indoctrinate Muslim children by using a brown British soldier to whitewash the actions of the British military in Muslim countries.
• It is not necessary for schools to use deformist counter-extremism organisations like New Horizons and British Futures to brainwash Muslim children into celebrating the colonial empire.
• It is not necessary for the businesses of Muslim members of Star Academies to partner with GCHQ.
• It is not necessary for schools to funnel Muslim children to British Intelligence.
• It is not necessary to work with a foundation laden with Zionists that support the agendas of the Zionist terror regime to tackle “conspiracy theories”.

Patel’s patternistic toadying actions, which stretch over a decade, are not a necessary function of “engaging government institutions”.

You may end up with a salary slightly less than the circa £300,000 that Patel receives, but at least you can sleep soundly with a tranquil heart knowing that you are not encouraging children to join the British Army or British intelligence; that you resisted collaboration with, and thus normalisation of the champions of a genocidal, racist ideology, and a regime that perpetuates the mass killing of Muslims.

You can sleep peacefully knowing you did what you could to not be a Zionist collaborator.

RELATED: Gaza: The Imams Condemn… What Now?

Notes

[1] Kundnani A., The Muslims are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism and the Domestic War on Terror, Verso Books: London, 2014, p.164.