Kelly-Jo Bluen: A Voice for Extremism, Not Scholarship

Israel’s existence is not a convenience. It is a necessity born of centuries of persecution, pogroms, and genocide.

Photo by Cole Keister on Unsplash

Kelly-Jo Bluen, a South African-born PhD candidate at the London School of Economics, has weaponised her identity as a Jewish South African not to promote reconciliation or critical inquiry, but to spread hostility toward her own community and to align herself with extremist ideologies. Despite her academic background in genocide and gender violence, her public conduct reflects neither compassion nor scholarly integrity. Instead, she amplifies hate speech and lends intellectual cover to those who promote violence.

Bluen has openly supported Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation under UK law. As outlined in the Terrorism Act 2000, it is a criminal offence in the United Kingdom to support, endorse, or express sympathy for such groups. Hamas is not simply a political organisation. It is explicitly committed to the annihilation of Israel and has engaged in the mass murder, rape, and torture of civilians. By endorsing Hamas and associating with its supporters, Bluen has violated the legal boundaries that govern speech and conduct in the UK.

While claiming expertise in genocide studies, Bluen appears to fundamentally misunderstand the concept. Like many modern academics, she masks her vacuousness in jargon, euphemisms, and bad writing. But her true views are made plain in blunt and disturbing public statements:

• “Every day is f**k Israel day.”

• “Abolish Israel… dismantle the white internationalism that underpin it.”

• “Abolish the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. Abolish the South African Zionist Federation.”

• “The whole entity [Israel] needs to be unsettled.”

• “Death to the IDF.”

This is not critique. It is incitement. It is not dissent. It is the language of eliminationism. Her statements show no concern for the safety or survival of Jewish people, nor any regard for the role Israel plays as a refuge and guarantee of Jewish self-determination. Instead of advocating for peaceful coexistence or the moral aspirations of a two-state solution, she fixates on the destruction of Israel and Jewish civil society in South Africa.

Bluen’s response to the horrors of October 7^th, the mass murder, rape, and torture of civilians by Hamas, has been silence or denial. She has shown no empathy for the victims, no recognition of the sexual violence inflicted, and no condemnation of the ongoing captivity of hostages. That silence speaks louder than any academic credential.

Her affiliations further discredit her. She is described as a “poster child” for South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP), a group that exploits its members' Jewish identity to shield antisemitic rhetoric from criticism. She has also welcomed figures like Leila Khaled, a convicted terrorist and member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another proscribed organisation. Through her support for the BDS movement, she contributes to a campaign that targets Jewish businesses and promotes the delegitimisation of the Jewish state, often blurring into overt antisemitism.

As with every destructive movement, there are always public intellectuals who provide rhetorical cover for hatred. Bluen fills this role with disturbing ease, using her heritage as a tool to attack her own people and justify her alignment with those who would see them harmed.

Her rejection of Jewish self-determination reflects either a profound ignorance of history or a chilling indifference to it. Israel’s existence is not a convenience. It is a necessity born of centuries of persecution, pogroms, and genocide. For someone studying these very themes, her stance is not just hypocritical. It is morally bankrupt.

Under Paragraph 9.3.2 of the UK Immigration Rules, the UK Home Secretary has the power to cancel visas for individuals whose presence is deemed “not conducive to the public good.” This includes those who express support for proscribed terrorist organisations, incite hatred, or promote extremism. Bluen’s statements and affiliations clearly meet this threshold.

The United Kingdom has both the right and the legal responsibility to act. Her continued presence at the London School of Economics not only undermines the credibility of British academic institutions but poses a broader risk to social cohesion and public safety. A swift review of her visa status is warranted. Her removal would be not a matter of censorship but a lawful defence of democratic principles and the fight against terrorism.

Nicholas Woode-Smith is the Managing Editor of the Rational Standard.