Ahmed Kamel – Egypt Daily News
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing mounting criticism after publicly welcoming the return to Britain of human rights activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah, following the resurfacing of old social media posts allegedly containing violent and antisemitic language.
Abd el-Fattah, a British-Egyptian dual national, arrived in the UK on Friday after Egyptian authorities lifted a travel ban that had kept him in the country since his release from prison in September. He had spent most of the past 14 years behind bars in Egypt, becoming one of the most prominent symbols of the country’s crackdown on dissent under President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi.
Successive British governments, Conservative and Labour alike, had pressed Cairo for his release, while his family waged a sustained public campaign in the UK. His mother, academic Laila Soueif, 69, undertook a hunger strike lasting around 10 months to draw attention to her son’s case and urge British officials to intensify diplomatic pressure.
Starmer marked Abd el-Fattah’s return with a public statement expressing relief at his reunion with family members. “I’m delighted that Alaa Abd el-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief,” the prime minister said, praising the efforts of his relatives and supporters.
However, the comments quickly drew criticism from the opposition Conservative Party. Robert Jenrick, the party’s justice spokesman, accused Starmer of offering a “personal, public endorsement” of Abd el-Fattah without acknowledging his controversial past statements. Jenrick demanded to know whether the prime minister was aware of historical social media posts in which Abd el-Fattah allegedly endorsed violence against “Zionists” and police officers.
“Nobody should be imprisoned arbitrarily nor for peaceful dissent,” Jenrick said. “But neither should the prime minister place the authority of his office behind someone whose own words cross into the language of racism and bloodshed.” He called on Starmer to explicitly condemn the statements and withdraw what he described as an “unalloyed endorsement.”
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office sought to distance the government from the controversy, stressing that campaigning for Abd el-Fattah’s release did not amount to approval of his views. In a statement, the department said it had been a “long-standing priority” of British governments to secure his freedom, while making clear that officials condemned the content of the historic posts.
“The government condemns Mr El-Fattah’s historic tweets and considers them to be abhorrent,” the statement said, adding that support for his release was rooted in opposition to arbitrary detention and the defense of basic rights, not agreement with his past rhetoric.
The controversy intensified after Abd el-Fattah landed at Heathrow Airport, when critics began circulating screenshots of the old posts online. According to The Times of London, Abd el-Fattah has previously said the remarks were taken out of context, claiming they were part of a private conversation during an Israeli military offensive in Gaza. It remains unclear whether the posts are authentic, and his press team did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Abd el-Fattah has long been viewed by international rights groups as a prisoner of conscience, jailed repeatedly for his activism and criticism of the Egyptian authorities since the 2011 uprising. His case has been cited by organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as emblematic of Egypt’s broader suppression of political opposition.
The episode has placed Starmer’s government in a delicate position, balancing its emphasis on human rights and rule of law with political sensitivities at home. While few in Westminster dispute the legitimacy of campaigning against prolonged detention without due process, the resurfacing of Abd el-Fattah’s past statements has complicated the narrative around his release and exposed the risks of personalizing diplomatic victories.
As the debate continues, the case highlights the tension between principled advocacy for human rights abroad and the domestic political scrutiny that can follow when figures freed from authoritarian prisons carry controversial personal histories.
