From Diana to the ordinary citizen: How Britain lost its sense of duty - opinion

In 1997, Princess Diana died in a Paris tunnel alongside Dodi al-Fayed, the son of an influential Egyptian businessman.

What followed was an extraordinary accusation: that Britain’s establishment had arranged her death because it feared that her relationship with a Muslim man – and the influence she wielded over millions – could change the country itself.

Dodi’s father, Mohamed al-Fayed, accused the royal establishment and British intelligence of orchestrating the crash. The allegations were investigated and rejected.

There was no established plot, and no proof Diana intended to convert to Islam. But the accusation mattered for what it alleged about the establishment’s priorities: that those at the top were prepared to sacrifice the mother of Britain’s future king rather than risk a profound change in British society.

Thirty years later, look at Britain.

A country once accused of being willing to sacrifice its crown jewel to stop a feared transformation now has leaders accused of refusing even the smallest political sacrifice to protect the ordinary citizen – the peasant.

That is the other side of the coin. The allegation then was that Britain would go too far to protect its identity. The indictment now is that its leaders have sold out the duty to protect it.

This is not a story about one demonstration, one election, or one religious community. It is about what happens when a government knows the dangers of extremism yet allows political calculation to outweigh its responsibility to confront them.

Britain was warned. Its own 2015 review described the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-associated organizations and recorded expressions of support for Hamas attacks among individuals linked to the movement. Islamist extremism was not a threat discovered yesterday. It was something Britain’s leaders had already examined in their own institutions.

Then came October 7. Hamas murdered civilians in Israel, and Gaza became a powerful force in British politics. Marches, campaigns and electoral pressure demanded a tougher posture toward Israel. Britain’s government made its own choices, and those choices – not the slogans on the street – are what its leaders must answer for.

In March 2026, London limited American use of British bases for offensive strikes against Iran, the regime that has armed and financed Hamas and Hezbollah.

US President Donald Trump publicly criticized the restriction. Britain later permitted specified defensive operations, but the dispute exposed how far London was prepared to distance itself from Washington on a central security issue.

Britain also imposed arms-export restrictions and sanctions relating to Israel, recognized Palestinian statehood and announced further measures involving Israeli settlements.

Israel closes Britain's Jerusalem consulate

The confrontation ended with Israel ordering the closure of Britain’s Jerusalem consulate. Its consular operations ceased in October, with 20 diplomats required to leave and a smaller British mission remaining.

No protester signed those orders. British ministers made those decisions. They may argue that each serves international law or British interests. They still owe their own citizens a convincing account of the priorities behind them – and of the consequences for the country’s security and alliances.

That is where the charge of a sellout comes from. Britain’s government has shown it can take hard positions when it chooses. Yet its critics see hesitation in confronting extremist intimidation at home, alongside a readiness to take measures against a democratic ally abroad.

British Jews face rising antisemitism; ordinary people are entitled to ask why protecting them is not met with the same resolve.

The controversy even reaches cultural partnerships. A Palestinian museum whose archives describe a perpetrator of the Coastal road massacre as a martyr has worked with British institutions.

That does not prove those institutions funded or endorsed the material. It does make the standards they apply a legitimate subject of scrutiny.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Britain the “Islamic Republic of Britain.” It was a political rebuke, not a literal description of the country. But his words captured the anger at a Britain whose foreign-policy decisions appear, to its critics, increasingly remote from the instincts of its traditional Western allies.

The real failure is not that Britain’s population or religious life has changed. It is the accusation that its leaders have traded the courage to defend their people and principles for the comfort of avoiding political confrontation.

A government is not judged by how firmly it speaks of its heritage, but by what it protects when protection becomes costly.

Diana’s death was not justified, and the murder allegation was not proved. The contrast is about the extremes Britain was accused of contemplating then and the resolve its leaders are accused of lacking now.

Once, the alleged sacrifice was the princess – the highest symbol of the nation. Now, critics say, its leaders will not risk their political standing for the peasant – the ordinary person who depends on the government for security and freedom.

That is how a country loses its way: not when its people change, but when those entrusted with protecting them stop putting them first.

The writer is the founder and CEO of the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce.