Kanye West wants British Jews to save him from the consequences of his own antisemitism

The organisers made it in full knowledge of his recent conduct, which has been marked by repeated and horrifying antisemitic statements. What has followed - the public controversy, the concern expressed by sponsors and politicians, and the anxiety felt by many ordinary Jewish families - was entirely predictable.

That observation matters because there has already been a shift in how this situation is framed. The focus has moved away from the original decision to book West and towards managing the entirely foreseeable consequences of that decision. In that context, it has been suggested engagement with the Jewish community should form part of the solution: perhaps through meetings or gestures intended to demonstrate contrition.

We should be clear about this. The Jewish community did not create this problem, and it is not our responsibility to resolve it. The organisers made a conscious choice, in full knowledge of West’s conduct. They must now take responsibility for that decision. It is unfair to ask the community most directly affected by West’s conduct to provide a solution to their difficulty.

Engagement in these circumstances risks being entirely performative. A meeting would inevitably be presented as reassurance, a signal that concerns have been addressed and that the event can proceed. That is not accountability. It is reputation management. We are not here to provide a “kosher” certificate for decisions taken by others in full knowledge of their likely impact.

None of this is to deny the possibility of change. People can and do reflect on their actions. But genuine accountability, particularly after conduct as serious as this, is not achieved through a single conversation or a one-off public gesture. It is a process that takes time and requires honest self-examination followed by sustained change in behaviour. In Jewish ethical thought, repentance, teshuvah, demands consistency and humility. It cannot be compressed into the days or weeks before a high-profile performance without trivialising the harm that has been caused.

There is also the question of risk. West has attributed aspects of his behaviour to mental health challenges. Recovery from serious mental illness is rarely straightforward, and it does not sit easily with the pressures of public performance. Even if some of his past statements were shaped by illness, there is a high risk that his behaviour will recur. Public platforms carry influence, and it is our community that experiences the consequences of his misconduct.

This is not an abstract debate for British Jews. The proposed venue is located a few minutes’ walk from Finsbury Park, close to a large and visibly identifiable Orthodox Jewish community. Members of that community already face a disproportionate level of antisemitic abuse in everyday life. When hateful rhetoric is amplified, it is they who experience the consequences directly, in their safety and in their ability to go about their daily routines without fear.

There is also a wider point about this country. Britain fought a war against Nazism at immense cost. Hundreds of thousands of British lives were lost, and tens of millions more across Europe. Any public figure who appears to trivialise or show sympathy for Nazi ideology should expect a strong and unequivocal reaction in this country.

There is a growing sense that parts of the industry are in denial about their responsibilities when it comes to antisemitism. This is not a one-off case. Melvin Benn, who is now promoting West, has previously defended the inclusion of Kneecap at a major festival last year, arguing that they should not be “censored”. That position may sound principled, but it risks establishing a pattern in which artists who whip up hatred are repeatedly given a platform, while the impact on Jewish audiences is treated as a secondary concern. As David Baddiel put it: when it comes to racism, Jews don’t count.

It is difficult to understand why organisers would choose to shine a spotlight on a performer whose recent conduct has provoked and amplified hatred against Jews. It reflects, at best, a serious lack of judgment and, at worst, a disregard for the consequences.

Responsibility should rest where it belongs. The organisers made their decision freely and with full knowledge of the likely outcome. They must now decide how to proceed in light of that reality.

Some problems cannot be outsourced to others. This is one of them.

____________________

Keith Black is Chair of the Jewish Leadership Council.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk