The intensity of the current backlash against Alaa Abdel Fattah in the UK is alarming, not because it reflects a new concern for justice, but because it exposes how selectively the outrage is unfolding.
Alaa, an Egyptian-British writer and activist, spent more than a decade in and out of Egyptian prisons after the 2011 uprising that toppled President Hosni Mubarak. His detention was marked by a prolonged hunger strike, denial of basic rights, and treatment that human rights groups describe as cruel and degrading. He was released on September 23 after years of campaigning by his mother, sister and close friends. His travel ban was only lifted this month, allowing him to join his family in the UK on December 26.
Although Alaa left behind a decade of repression in Cairo, he was welcomed in London with public attacks and calls for him to be stripped of his British citizenship and deported. Public hostility was further fueled by the revelation of a 2010 social media post in which Mr. Aller said he considered “the killing of colonialists, including Zionists, heroic.”
The tweet was widely condemned, sent to counterterrorism police for review, and picked up by politicians calling for punitive action.
The speed and intensity of this reaction stands in stark contrast to the silence surrounding much more serious statements and actions, which the UK not only tolerates but actively enables.
This is what selective outrage looks like.
Although Mr. Aller’s words have been dissected and framed as a moral emergency, Britain continues to host and co-operate with senior Israeli officials accused of participating in and instigating the massacre.
For example, in July Tomer Bar, the Israeli Air Force commander who oversaw the carpet bombing of Gaza, the destruction of hospitals, schools and homes, and the extermination of entire families, was granted special legal immunity to visit the UK. According to declassified British reports, this immunity spared him from arrest for war crimes on British territory.
There has been no comparable outcry against this.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog also visited the UK in September and was able to hold high-level talks. This is the same man who suggested at the start of the genocide that “the entire[Palestinian]nation” was responsible, and that “this rhetoric that civilians are unaware and uninvolved is not true.” This and other statements by Herzog are now collected in a large database supporting the genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
But despite being accused of inciting genocide, the Israeli president entered the UK without incident and was welcomed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The various quarters that were concerned about Mr. Aller’s tweets did not express their anger at the visit of the would-be war criminal.
They also remain silent about British nationals who have traveled to serve in the Israeli military, including during the Israeli offensive in Gaza and the ongoing genocide. These operations, documented by the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, the destruction of hospitals and universities, and the devastation of entire neighborhoods.
Despite the existence of an extensive documentation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the ICJ warning of a serious risk of genocide, there has been no systematic investigation into whether British nationals may have been involved in violations of international law.
Again, sustained anger is rare.
At the same time, the UK continues to authorize arms exports to Israel and continues to engage in political, military and intelligence cooperation. These policies continue despite international organizations warning of serious humanitarian consequences and possible violations of international law. All of this unfolds at relatively little political cost.
Nevertheless, it was not the mass killings, the siege, the large-scale destruction of civilian life, or even the incitement to genocide that caused political panic in Britain, but a tweet from a decade ago.
This contrast is no coincidence. It reveals a hierarchy of anger, where dissent is policed and punished, but state violence is not, and where public hostility is directed not upwards toward authority but downwards toward individuals. Allah’s case illustrates how moral language is selectively deployed not to suppress impunity but to manage discomfort.
This asymmetry undermines the credibility of the principles the UK claims to uphold. When human rights are selectively defended, they become convenient tools rather than universal norms. When anger is great but inconsistent, it becomes behavioral. And when responsibility is withheld from powerful allies, impunity becomes built into policy.
Defenders of this approach often refer to “quiet diplomacy” and argue that restraint is more effective than confrontation. But there is little evidence that silence has resulted in accountability, either to Allah or to civilians exposed to mass violence in Gaza. In both cases, discretionary power functions less as a strategy and more as a license.
The UK has tools to take different actions, including suspending arms exports, investigating potential crimes committed by its own citizens, conditioning cooperation on respect for international law, and restricting visits by officials involved in serious human rights abuses. It is clear that these tools are rarely used.
Until that changes, violence will remain selective, conditional responsibility and impunity, widening the gap between Britain’s professed values and the violence it continues to enable.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
