Gary Lineker, the former England striker and one of the BBC’s most recognisable presenters, is once again at the centre of a political storm.

This time, the controversy stems from an Instagram story he reposted—originating from the group Palestine Lobby—which included the phrase “Zionism explained in two minutes”… and an illustration featuring a rat.

The backlash was immediate.

Critics, including This Site’s old… friends… at the Campaign Against Antisemitism and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, claimed the post was anti-Semitic due to the rat image—a de-humanising trope used by the Nazis to depict Jews.

They are now, predictably, demanding Lineker’s resignation from the BBC, accusing him of promoting hate.

But is this really anti-Semitic intent, or are they simply weaponising manufactured outrage to silence one of the UK’s most visible and vocal critics of Israeli government policy?

What actually happened?

The post in question was not Lineker’s own creation.

It was shared via his Instagram story and deleted shortly after.

Lineker’s agent explained that the rat image had been added as an emoticon by the original author of the post, and that Lineker did not notice it at the time.

“Whilst viewing and reposting a video, Gary did not notice a rodent emoticon added by the author of the post. Although if he had, he would not have made any connection. The repost has been removed,” his agent said.

Nevertheless, Campaign Against Antisemitism responded online: “Nothing to see here. Just Gary Lineker’s Instagram account sharing an anti-Israel video misrepresenting Zionism, complete with a rat emoji.” The group added that Lineker’s “continued association with the BBC is untenable. He must go.”

Zionism, criticism and conflation

The issue hinges on a critical distinction often blurred in public discourse: criticism of Zionism or of the Israeli state is not inherently anti-Semitic.

Zionism is a political ideology that advocates for the existence of a Jewish state—an ideology with its own spectrum of interpretations and political consequences that has been explored at length on This Site and many others in the past, particularly during the (manufactured) fuss about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

It is entirely legitimate to critique Zionism, especially in light of Israel’s current actions in Gaza which many see as an expression of a Zionist policy to steal land from others in order to build the aforementioned Jewish state.

That said, anti-Semitic imagery, such as the depiction of Jews as rats, has a long and appalling history and it is right to challenge its appearance in political commentary.

But there is no evidence that Gary Lineker saw the emoji, let alone intended to endorse its meaning as a de-humanising anti-Semitic trope.

To leap from a single emoji in a reposted video to allegations of anti-Semitism—while ignoring his immediate deletion of the post—suggests a desire to punish Lineker for his reasonable political views rather than to combat genuine hate.

A pattern of silencing dissent

This is far from the first time Lineker has faced pressure for expressing moral or political opinions.

He was suspended by the BBC in 2023 after tweeting criticism of the Conservative government’s asylum policy, which he likened to language used in 1930s Germany. That incident sparked a major debate over impartiality and freedom of speech.

More recently, in a BBC interview with Amol Rajan, Lineker criticised the broadcaster’s approach to the Israel-Gaza conflict. “What’s going on there—the mass murder of thousands of children—is probably something we should have a little opinion on,” he said.

When Rajan countered that the BBC must remain impartial, Lineker pushed back: “It wasn’t impartial about Ukraine and Russia… I think facts are the most important thing.”

This observation strikes at the heart of a broader crisis in mainstream journalism—particularly at institutions like the BBC—which often mistake “neutrality” for balance, even when the facts are overwhelmingly one-sided.

Facts first, not false balance

As a journalist, This Writer was always taught that my first loyalty is to the facts—not to ensuring that both sides of an issue are treated with kid gloves.

If one party is engaging in systematic violence, disinformation, or ethnic cleansing, the press has a duty to report it plainly—not to bury it in euphemism or “both sides” hedging.

Lineker’s call for factual journalism rather than forced impartiality is not only principled—it’s necessary.

In a time when more than 52,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, and hundreds of children are buried under rubble, any pretence of neutrality in the face of such devastation risks complicity.

I find it shaming to my fellow journalists within the BBC and elsewhere that they need a sportsman who is not himself a trained journalist to point this out to them.

The real target isn’t Lineker—it’s dissent

Lineker’s detractors are not merely offended by an emoji.

They are engaged in a long-running campaign to discredit one of the few high-profile figures willing to speak openly about Gaza and challenge pro-Israel orthodoxy in mainstream media.

The demands for his sacking are not about anti-Semitism—they are about silencing dissent and intimidating others who might follow his lead.

It’s crucial to reiterate: anti-Semitism must be confronted wherever it genuinely appears.

But conflating all criticism of Zionism or Israel with anti-Semitism dilutes that fight and endangers free speech.

Where does the BBC stand?

The BBC has so far declined to comment on the incident, referring instead to its general guidelines on social media use.

That silence may be strategic, but it also speaks volumes.

Will the BBC once again bend to external pressure and scapegoat Lineker?

Or will it defend the principle that journalists and presenters are allowed moral clarity and political conscience?

For now, Lineker remains in the public eye through his The Rest Is Football podcast and his continued presence in BBC football coverage.

But the message from his critics is clear: toe the line or face the mob.

A mistake, not a crime

Lineker was wrong to repost a video with troubling imagery—however unintentional.

But he corrected it swiftly.

That should be the end of the matter.

Instead, we’re witnessing a politically motivated attempt to take down one of the few public figures willing to say: the mass killing of civilians in Gaza demands not “balance,” but factual reporting.

On that, Gary Lineker is absolutely and undoubtedly right.