Open Letter to a Holocaust Denier - The Reverend Lord Biggar, Oxford’s Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral and Pastoral Theology

Those Who Deny the Holocaust in Gaza are No Different to those Who Deny the Nazi Holocaust

The truth about the British Empire and slavery: Mehdi Hasan and Nigel Biggar | Head to Head

I first came across Tory Peer and author of In Defence of War, the Revd. Lord Biggar, when a friend, Adam Waterhouse, sent me a link to an article he had written. Adam’s article was in response to an article Biggar had written, Israel’s acts are not ‘genocidal.’ Biggar had been replying to an article by the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell which spoke of Israel’s actions in Gaza as ‘genocidal acts’.

The Archbishop had visited the West Bank and he was quoted as saying that after his visit the previous week “It gives me no joy whatsoever to use these words,” but that he had been left wondering, “What other words do you use” to describe the situation in the West Bank?

What’s happening in the West Bank is not what happened in South Africa, but you’re left thinking: what other language do I use to describe such a two-tier system, where one group of people is so persistently and systematically denied their human rights and having to live a parallel life? What is happening is deliberate and systematic, persistent, and intentional, and its impact is devastating.

You may wonder why Nigel Biggar even felt the need to respond to the Archbishop’s mild words. We have the horrors of Gaza: the starvation of children, the bombing of hospitals and schools, the Flour Massacre and the shooting of people collecting food, the mass murder of innocent civilians and the genocidal statements of Israeli leaders, to say nothing of the open apartheid in the West Bank, yet the only thing that aroused the ire of our Professor of Morality was the description of what is happening in Gaza 'Genocide'. 

Israeli officials' rhetoric fuelling Gaza genocide through dehumanisation and incitement: B’Tselem

One can only assume that Biggar was doing his best to prevent any expression of solidarity by the Church of England with the Palestinians of Gaza. Not that there had been much anyway. Until he resigned for his role in covering up child abuse in the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby had not only refused to condemn the genocide but had all but supported it.

Biggar is not a historian but an academic engaged in historical revisionism and moral relativism. He is no different from those who downplay the magnitude of the Nazi holocaust.

Although Biggar dresses up his arguments in the clothes of moral theology his mission is political, the rehabilitation of the reputation of the British Empire and its offspring, Israel.

That is why he defends the actions of Israel and minimises the genocide in Gaza. In this he is given enthusiastic support by the same Tory press which turned a blind eye to Hitler's anti-Semitism in the 30s.

Zionism was the product of the late colonial era. He could hardly exculpate British colonialism whilst condemning its bastard child, Israel. That is the impulse which drives Biggar and he is not averse to resorting to every verbal and rhetorical trick in pursuit of that goal even if he plays fast and loose with facts.

The reason why I have penned an Open Letter to Biggar is two fold. Firstly Adam Waterhouse was too polite by half when tackling as devious and dishonest a character as Biggar. Politeness is not one of my faults!

Secondly there are many questions that Adam did not ask concerning Biggar’s motive in writing his turgid essay.

To:  nigel.biggar@theology.ox.ac.uk, biggarn@parliament.uk, @NigelBiggar  

Open Letter to the Rev. Lord Biggar

Dear Lord Biggar,

You are the Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral and Pastoral Theology. It is a grand title for such an immoral, (or is it amoral?) man. You are the King’s Professor no less.

I puzzle over what kind of morality and theology leads a person to deny that a genocide is taking place when the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming?

You state, in the Church Times of 28 November 2025, that Israel’s acts are not ‘genocidal’ in response to the Archbishop of York’s declaration that Israel is committing ‘genocidal acts’. 

Israel bombs school in Gaza killing children and parents under the pretext that they were Hamas

What was it that went through your mind when you read Archbishop Cottrell’s article that impelled you to write in defence of Israel’s genocide? What emotion was it that led you to defend a state that has bombed refugee camps, tent encampments and burnt and buried children alive? A state which has destroyed hospitals and schools, murdered doctors and first responders?

By the most conservative estimate, when your article appeared, 70,100 people had been murdered by Israel in Gaza yet you reduce it to 44,000. Why?

According to a study published in The Lancet, some 83,000 had died by January 2025. If this is true then over 118,000 had died by the time your article appeared.

According to Stuart Casey Maslen, head of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Gaza’s population had declined by more than 10%, which would suggest roughly 200,000 people had died by February 2026.

In your article you do your best to minimise the number of dead. Morally you are no different from deniers of the Nazi holocaust who also did their best to minimise the number of those killed. You say that ‘the large number of civilian casualties alone — maybe around 44,000 — is not sufficient evidence’ of genocide. Is this what the morality of pastoral Christian theology amounts to?

The definition of genocide owes nothing to numbers. The death of 8,000 at Srbenica was held to be a genocide. ‘Genocide’ refers to the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The question is whether Israel had the necessary intent and did it commit any of the acts that constitute genocide, viz. 

Ø    Killing members of or Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

Ø    Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part

Ø    Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Ø    Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Apart from the last category it is clear that the acts of the Israeli state are clearly acts of genocide. It is also clear that you have no expertise in genocide, history or any relevant academic discipline.

Raz Segal, an Israeli and Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies does have that expertise. Segal wrote:

Israelis are explicit and unashamed about their genocidal intent because they have imagined and prosecuted a war against people who they see as colonised “savages”.

A survey by Professor Tamir Sorek of Pennsylvania State University showed that 82% of Israeli Jews supported the expulsion of the Palestinians of Gaza and 47% agreed that

when conquering an enemy city, the Israel Defense Forces should act as the Israelites did in Jericho under Joshua's command – killing all its inhabitants.

56% supported the expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel. The statements of intent to commit genocide by Israel's leaders are too many to count.

You question why Archbishop Cottrell ‘thinks that his view should carry weight’ when he ‘is an expert neither in the ethics of war nor in Middle Eastern affairs’. But this applies even more so to you, the author of a book In Defence of War?

You also criticise the Genocide Convention because it ‘fails to distinguish the morally different ways in which a people can be “destroyed”.’ For most people there is nothing moral in destroying a people.

You compare the Allies killing of thousands of French and Italian civilians in the fight against the Nazis with Israel’s ‘war against Hamas’. But there is no  comparison. 

Hamas is a resistance organisation waging a guerrilla war against the world’s fourth most powerful army. The Nazis had an army consisting of armed soldiers complete with tanks and aircraft. So too does Israel. It is the IDF not Hamas which is comparable to the Nazis.

It is also noticeable that you avoid mentioning the word ‘Palestinians’. To you they are ‘Arabs’. This too is part of a genocidal mentality whereby indigenous people are invisible.

What is clear is that your morality is not politically neutral. You say that

THERE is no doubt that Hamas intended to kill indiscriminately on 7 October 2023, because we know that they deliberately hunted down the old, the young, and the infant.’

Hamas mass rape a ‘hoax’ and ‘fake news’, says University of Sydney professor

But there is doubt. Israel has waged a war of atrocity propaganda. The first lies were the 40 beheaded babies hoax. Then there was the mass rape hoax. Hamas’ principal aim was to capture Israeli hostages in order to exchange them for Palestinian hostages.

Whereas you attributed to Hamas the worst of motives, you went out of your way to excuse the actions of the Israeli army. You wrote that:

In contrast, the fact that the Israeli military have targeted buildings where they know civilians are present is no proof that they intend to kill them; for it may be that their intended targets are Hamas sites, to which, tragically, civilians are located dangerously close.

So when Israel bombs and attacks hospitals it is because they are Hamas sites? And ambulances? Universities? What about schools?  How about reservoirs and water treatment plants? Was Hamas hiding out in them too? How about the Trades Union Centre? Are bakeries and kindergartens also Hamas bases.

I know that you are an expert in moral theology, but that begs the question of whether moral theology is a genuine academic discipline or an invented and imagined subject. It is entirely subjective and without any means of independent verification.

Everything you have said could justify any and everything that the Nazis did. Your morality seems to depend on which side you take.  Are there any universal principles that can be distilled from your writings?

You say that ‘the Nazi death camps are the paradigm of genocide’. But are they? One of the main characteristics of Genocide is that there is no paradigm except perhaps the presence of colonialism/imperialism/nationalism.

The death of between 12 and 15 million Africans as a result of slavery might also be considered paradigmatic but your main concern when it comes to colonial slavery is to oppose reparations by indulging in whatabouttery in your book The Tyranny of Imagined Guilt.

As Professor Alan Lester writes:

‘Whataboutery seems to me a very fragile ethical edifice upon which to build an anti-reparative argument.

It seems that ethics have no place in your moral theology. Lester writes that you

accuse(s) reparations activists of “the reckless, dismissive brushing aside of concerns about the truth.” One wonders if he was looking in the mirror.

For you there seems to be only one genocide, the Jewish holocaust. Contrary to Zionist propaganda it was no more unique than any other genocide.

Was the Genocide in the Congo  where amputations and the skinning alive of the 10 million Africans were perpetrated, less cruel or paradigmatic? 

Was the Herero/Nama genocide in SW Africa to be disregarded when it was based on the same principles of racial supremacy and even involved some of the same actors who perpetrated the Nazi holocaust, such as Eugen Fischer?

The Nazi genocide of Jews has become an imperialist narrative, shorn of its political and social  roots, as the main rationale for everything that Israel does. It is no surprise that you do not deploy your ‘moral’ arguments against reparations for slavery against the reparations that were paid by the Germans to Israel.

I can only assume that the real reason for your anguish is that as a Christian Zionist you are prepared to justify any atrocity and any war crime that Israel commits because without the ‘return’ of the Jews to the Holy Land Christ will not be returning. In other words the ends justify the means.

When I saw you in the debate hosted by Mehdi Hassan you brought to mind Percy Shelley’s Masque of Anarchy, written in the wake of the massacre at Peterloo in 1819:

I met Murder on the way—

He had a mask like Castlereagh -

Very smooth he looked, yet grim;

Seven blood-hounds followed him.

You are also the author of Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning, which attempts to provide a defence of the British Empire. In your own words it is ‘Empire Without Apology’.

Although you conceded in the debate hosted by Mehdi Hassan that the Empire contained ‘‘elements of racism’ you see the Empire as not having been ‘essentially racist’. On balance it was a force for good.

It is no surprise that you were ennobled by Kemi Badenoch who like most Black people in the Tory Party goes out of her way to prove that she’s politically White. Badenoch is the Black Face of White Supremacism. It is no surprise that she has been called a coconut by Black anti-racists.

Kenan Malik, in his review of your book describes how, in 1919, the architect of British support for Zionism, Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour,

dismissed the idea that the new League of Nations should adopt a statement about equality, insisting it unimaginable “that a man from central Africa could be regarded as the equal of a European or an American”

This is the racism that led to Britain’s support of Zionism.

Your real function as an academic was to provide the religious and ideological underpinnings for the new imperialism that we are seeing play out in the wars in the Middle East today. Your academic discipline, Moral Theology, is little more than a religious justification of imperialism and its work. It is political chicanery dressed up in academic jargon.

Virtually every human rights organisation in the world recognises that what has occurred in Gaza is genocide. Organisations as disparate as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Israel’s B’tselem and the UN’s own Commission of Inquiry. The Association of Genocide Scholars voted by 86% to describe what was happening in Gaza as a genocide.

Perhaps you would like to inform people just what your own qualifications are that enables you to contradict not only every human rights organisation but the testimony of doctors like Dr Mark Perlmutter. In an interview Perlmutter described how, when volunteering at the European hospital of Khan Younis in southern Gaza he "saw two children that were shot twice". He added: "No child gets shot twice by mistake."

Virtually every doctor who has volunteered in Gaza has the same story. Israel is using children as target practice. Does this not tell you something about what has happened in Gaza or does your allegiance to the Tory Party and mammon preclude this?

It seems to me that a far better title for you to use would be the Professor of an Immoral Theology, not forgetting the Regius bit of course!

Tony Greenstein 

Arrested for Saying that Israel is Doing What the Nazis Did - It is NOT the Job of the Police to Control Free Speech

The Irony of the Institutionally Racist Metropolitan Police Telling Anti-Zionist Jews What They Can and Cannot Say is Like Harold Shipman Lecturing on Medical Ethics

Last Friday four Jewish people – Haim Bresheeth, an anti-Zionist Israeli, Jackie Walker, who was expelled as a result of the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ in Corbyn’s Labour Party, Stephen Kapos – a child survivor of the Hungarian holocaust and myself addressed about 100 people demonstrating outside the residence of Israel Ambassador, Tzipi Hotoveli.

Hotoveli Opens Book with Blank Pages

Hotoveli is a notorious racist who described the Nakba as an ‘Arab lie’ despite it being copiously documented. The fact that Israel not only won’t open its archives on the Nakba but is busying trying to hide those documents that have been revealed, demonstrates that it has something to hide.

Hotoveli once presented a book with no pages to the Knesset opening it to declare that this was the sum total of Palestinian history.’You are thieves of history’ which was rich coming from a thieving Zionist colonist. The fact that this racist nutcase was welcomed to the Labour Party conference says everything about the moral vacuum at the heart of Starmer’s so-called Labour Party.

I was the last of the 4 speakers. I made it clear that the genocide and ethnic cleansing, the bombing of hospitals, universities, schools, tent encampments as well as the starvation blockade reminded me of nothing so much as the behaviour of Nazi Germany. I could have added that it bore a distinct resemblance to the behaviour of the British Empire in India, Kenya and many other of our colonies but since Israel claims to inherit the memory of the Jewish holocaust dead it was appropriate to confine my remarks to the holocaust.

I also repeated the phrase that I had used at the Palestine Expo five years ago, which the Jewish Chronicle had highlighted, namely that Today most people with a streak of moral fibre would agree that I was prescient. Not so the Police. They were on the look out for any speech that their political masters considered ‘anti-Semitic’ using the bogus IHRA definition of anti-Semitism which gives as an illustration of ‘anti-Semitism’ ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’.

In its opening sentence the ‘definition’ describes itself as a ‘non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism’ but in practice the Police and other State bodies, including universities, have adopted it as if it were a legal  code. This is not the place to dissect the IHRA, whose only purpose is to defend a racist genocidal state, as its critics are numerous. Academically and intellectually it is indefensible and even Zionists like Professor Geoffrey Alderman and David Feldman have criticised it as flawed,  faulty and bewilderingly imprecise.

I was arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act

The fact is that the IHRA’s basic message is that all except anodyne criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic and that is enough for Sir Mark Rowley’s none too bright thought police.  As Sir Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal judge wrote in Defining Anti-Semitism (LRB, May 2017)

Endeavours to conflate the two [Zionism and anti-Semitism] by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new.

Sedley also wrote that the IHRA ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite’. However the Metropolitan Police are better known for their corruption and thuggery than any intellectual achievements.

The irony is that I was arrested on the 88^th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street when the Met did their best to batter their way through the Jewish East End of London in order that Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists and National Socialists (they changed their name to add the last 3 words in 1936) could march and intimidate working class Jews.

When anti-Semitism was a real force to be reckoned with in society, no group was more sympathetic to the fascists than the Metropolitan Police who had many BUF sympathisers in them. Now that anti-Semitism has been redefined as support for the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism, which is the adopted policy of the British government, the Met is now against it!

As Jews have moved to the right and become both more prosperous and an alibi for British support for Israel, the Met has combined philo Semitism with Islamaphobia and anti-Black racism. Their racism hasn’t gone away it has simply been transferred to others.

At the end of my speech I was informed by others that the Met, who were surrounding the demonstration, were pointing at me and sure enough, as the demonstration dispersed I was asked to accompany plod. Now for the sake of fairness I should add that the Police were perfectly polite and I accept that they were doing what the Mark Rowley’s and Keir Starmers of this world were instructing them to do which was to clamp down on pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist speech.

I was arrested and taken to Holborn Police station where I was held for 7 hours before being released early in the morning. I was interviewed for nearly an hour by two cops who clearly didn’t have a clue what they were talking about. I decided to dispense with a solicitor since there was nothing they could have done and since I don’t agree with blanket ‘no comment’ interviews, which tend to suggest that you have something to hide, I was happy to take them on.

I was bailed with two conditions:

Not to come to Camden and not to attend pro-Palestinian protests in London. As far as I am concerned the latter is unlawful and I will be seeking to have this removed at the first opportunity. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights is quite clear. Even the most stupid politician and policeman should be able to get their heads around it:

During my interview I referenced the 1999 case of Redmond-Bate v DPP where the said LJ Sedley ruled that ‘“Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.” It’s something that the Zionists and their claque of supporters don’t want to understand. Nor did the police who interview me understand what I was getting at. Policemen rarely do understand such concepts.

“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear. From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power. We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy.”

Comparing Israel and its genocidal racism to Nazi Germany is something many Israelis have done. Ze’ev Sternhell, a former professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a child survivor of the holocaust, wrote an article In Israel, Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism. One suspects that the idiots who arrested me would have arrested Sternhell too.

Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem p.7

Hannah Arendt, who was a refugee from Nazi Germany and the greatest political scientist of the last century noted in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem that the attacks at the Eichmann trial on the Nuremberg Laws for banning marriage between Jews and non-Jews was somewhat ironic since Israel also banned them!

The fact is that the very racial supremacism that the Nazis promoted is alive and well in Israel. The Police are there to uphold the existing inequalities of society in the name of ‘the rule of law’. They are not paid to think and very few of them do think outside narrow parameters.

That is why the Metropolitan and other police forces are regularly found to be full of narrow minded bigots such as the officers at Charing Cross Station whose WhatsApp messages finally did for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Bigot, Cressida Dick.

As far as I’m concerned the bail conditions are unlawful and have nothing to do with repeating an offence that did not occur so I do not feel bound by them. I will be pleading not guilty and seeking to bring a number of witnesses if the Crown Prosecution Service is stupid enough to charge me.

In the event that the CPS does not bring charges then I will sue the police for false and malicious imprisonment since I spent approximately 7 hours in custody besides incurring other expenses. The only way to punish the police for their dictatorial behaviour is to hit them in the pocket although, since they can draw on unlimited public money, one suspects that they will not reform.

What happened is that arch-Zionist agitator and thug Richard Millett, who sued Jeremy Corbyn and then backed off, made a malicious complaint to the Police. The Police as is always the case bend over backwards to appease these racists.

That is why I am setting up a Crowdfunder in order that I can fund both future civil litigation and also take legal advice about the present charges (since I am not entitled to legal aid until charges have been laid).

I would therefore ask those of you who are able to contribute to do so. My Crowdfunder ‘Stopping the Police Persecuting Palestine Solidarity Activists’ is now live.

Tony Greenstein