A paper published by the Royal Geographical Society (RGS) in its Geographical Journal has sparked controversy for linking the 2024 summer riots in the United Kingdom to Zionism, prompting accusations of promoting racist ideas. The article, authored by Kawtar Najib, a lecturer in human geography at the University of Liverpool, argued that the far-right anti-immigration unrest that erupted following an attack in Southport was influenced by a “strategic consensus” between Zionist and fascist groups. Najib also asserted that white supremacy is central to the Zionist project.
The paper, titled *The United Kingdom’s first anti-Muslim pogroms in a context of genocidal Islamophobia in Gaza*, further connected the riots to violence in Gaza, characterizing Israel’s military operations there as a “genocide” and framing both events as outcomes of “Islamophobic narratives perpetuated mainly by prominent racist and Islamophobic activists.”
The publication has drawn swift criticism from senior academics in geography, who questioned the judgment of the RGS in allowing what some describe as reliance on "age-old, notorious racist ideas" to appear in its journal. George Holmes, professor of conservation and society at the University of Leeds, described the article as "frankly insulting" to scholars committed to combating racism within the discipline. Holmes called on Prof Peter Hopkins, the chairman of the RGS annual conference and editor of the journal issue, to resign from his conference role, alleging his involvement in what Holmes termed “one of the worst instances of public racism in academia” in recent memory.
The controversy has overshadowed this year’s RGS conference, which is focused on exploring themes of inequality. Calls for accountability have intensified amid the backlash, with some members of the academic community expressing concern that the publication could undermine efforts to address discrimination in geography.
In response to the dispute, an RGS spokesperson emphasized that the paper underwent a double-blind peer review process involving two reviewers and editorial oversight prior to publication. The Society stated it takes all complaints seriously and routinely reviews its journal practices to uphold scholarly standards.
Neither Prof Hopkins nor Dr Najib responded to multiple requests for comment on the matter. The debate remains ongoing as the RGS faces increased scrutiny over editorial oversight and the broader implications of the paper’s findings within academic and public discourse.