The attempt, by Zionist/imperialist politicians and media, to use the appalling murder of Jewish worshippers, by an anti-Semitic jihadist, to ban pro-Palestinian protests has simply exposed their own hypocrisy. The feats of semantic gymnastics they have performed have been Olympian.
Firstly, as I wrote a couple of days ago, we had the condemnation of the jihadist as undertaking an egregious and abominable act against Jewish worshippers, in Britain, who have no connection to the acts of genocide being committed by the Zionist state in Israel, against Palestinians. It was quite rightly pointed out that this was, therefore, an anti-Semitic attack, against Jews for being Jews, and which sought to equate all Jews with Israel, and with Zionism. All absolutely, correct. But, then, we had, immediately after that, demands that demonstrations – called not against Jews, but against the Zionist state's genocide in Palestine – be cancelled, or postponed, in deference to British Jewish communities! Why?
The first absolutely correct premise that British Jews are not synonymous with the Zionist state, and, therefore, in no way connected to the genocidal actions of that state, precludes any connection of demonstrations against that Zionist state being deemed to be protests against British Jews. You cannot argue the former without accepting the latter, without placing yourself in a fundamental contradiction, a reductio ad absurdum. Yet, that is what the Zionist/imperialist politicians and media have tried to argue. Are they really wanting to say that pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and/or demonstrations against the genocide being committed by the Zionist state are, de facto, anti-Semitic demonstrations against British Jews? If so, they can only do so by, also, claiming that British Jews are, indeed, somehow synonymous with the Zionist state, and, therefore, also responsible for its actions!
That is the inevitable logic of their argument, and, of itself, is a thoroughly anti-Semitic argument. Indeed, throughout its history, Zionism, by its own attempts to claim that Judaism and Zionism are synonymous, has been a thoroughly anti-Semitic ideology, and a major contributor to the development of anti-Semitism across the globe. (Some of the most militant Zionists are not Jews, but are Christian Zionists, whose own vile anti-Semitism is explicit.) It implies that you can only be a real Jew if you are, also, a Zionist, and that, wherever you live in the world, as a Jew, you are Israeli, and your allegiance lies primarily with Israel.
There are, of course, those that have difficulty separating one thing from another. For example, in Britain in the 1930's, opposition to Nazism, led some to simply equate Nazism with being German, even though it was millions of Germans who were the first and most affected by it. That didn't stop some, in Britain, simply adopting a hatred of all Germans just for being German! But, would anyone have argued not to hold demonstrations against Nazism, and in support of the victims of Nazism, on that basis? Of course not, though, it is why, it would be better to refer to fascism, rather than Nazism. Its why its better to refer to the actions of the Zionist state, rather than the Israeli state.
The most obvious manifestation of this anti-Semitic, Zionist logic is the fact that, in Britain, thousands of Jews oppose Zionism, and oppose the genocide being committed by the Zionist state against Palestinians. Many of them, indeed, took part in the demonstrations that the Zionists/imperialists sought to ban. The implication is that, these Jews are not, therefore, really Jews at all. It seeks to equate being a real Jew with being a Zionist, and with being, thereby, synonymous with the Zionist state, and its genocide! What greater piece of anti-Semitic ideology could there be than that, as a means of stoking hatred of Jews as Jews?
For the last century, imperialism and supporters of the Zionist state have claimed that they favour a two bourgeois states solution. That is the creation of a Jewish state, and a Palestinian state. Setting aside the reactionary nature of demands for the creation of new bourgeois states, let alone nation states based upon religious or ethnonationalism, what do the arguments over the weekend, actually tell us? We are told that the pro-Palestine demonstrations were, inherently, anti-Semitic, and so should have been cancelled or postponed. But, you can only argue that a pro-Palestinian demonstration is “anti-Semitic”, if, first you equate being Jewish with being Zionist, and if, secondly, you see the existence of a Palestinian state as being inevitably contradictory to the existence of a Jewish state in Israel. Now, as it happens, and as I argued 40 years ago, and ever since, I do believe that, so long as capitalism/imperialism exists, the reality is that a two-bourgeois states solution is a dangerous and reactionary delusion, but that is not what the imperialist politicians and media have claimed.
But, if they were genuine in their belief that a two bourgeois states solution is the way forward, and not simply a diplomatic lie used to pacify the gullible, and enable the colonial rule of the Zionist state to continue, whilst denying political rights to Palestinians, they cannot possibly argue that a “Pro-Palestinian” demonstration is de facto, an “anti-Israel” demonstration, let alone an “anti-Semitic” demonstration, and even less a demonstration aimed against Jews living in Britain! A “pro-Palestinian” demonstration, i.e. a demonstration demanding that a politically independent Palestinian state should be allowed the right to self-determination, and that the occupation of that state by the Zionist state be ended, can only be deemed to be “anti-Israel” if you actually believe that the creation of an independent Palestinian state is irreconcilable with the continued existence of the state of Israel. In other words, it requires that you abandon the pretence that you support a Two-bourgeois states solution. Even, less, as set out above can a pro-Palestine demonstration, then be equated with being a demonstration against British Jews, or Jews per se, especially as many British Jews have participated in those demonstrations.
Netanyahu, of course, has no difficulty in simply saying that he rejects the idea of a two bourgeois states solution, and admitting that he sees the creation of an independent Palestinian state as being antithetical to the existence of the Israeli state. Only at the point that the Zionist state has killed all prospect of an independent Palestinian state, or, indeed, any kind of Palestinian state, and increasingly continued existence of Palestinian people, as it proceeds with its genocide, has Britain recognised Palestine, which amounts to a totally meaningless, face-saving gesture, as it turns its attention to the possibility of future war crimes trials, in which it may be implicated. Yet, for the hard-line Zionists even that formal recognition of Palestine, is too much. When the deplorable Lammy went to Manchester, a group of hard line Zionists, took the opportunity to shout him down complaining that, in some inexplicable way, this recognition of Palestine, was itself a contributory factor in leading an anti-Semitic, jihadist to carry out their attack! With that flawed logic, it would be at least as rational to conclude that such a person was motivated to carry out their attack as a result of the Zionist state undertaking a genocide against Palestinians!
The flawed logic and hypocrisy continued with the response to the actual demonstrations. As stated above, the descriptions of the demonstrations have varied, sometimes referring to them as being “Pro-Palestinian”, and sometimes “anti-Genocide”, as well as those dealing with the opposition to the ridiculous banning of “Palestine Action”. What none of those descriptions have been able to claim is that the demonstrations were “anti-Israel”, let alone “anti-Semitic”. That has been left to be tacitly implied with the commentary surrounding the description and reporting, and overtly implied in the demands that the protests be cancelled or postponed. But, the implication whether tacit or overt has no basis in fact or logic. If you purport to support a two bourgeois states solution, then an independent, free Palestine, is a prerequisite for it, and so, why would you oppose a protest in support of such a development, especially as the British government, along with the majority of other other states in the world, now recognises a Palestinian state?
If that is what you believe, you cannot logically argue that a protest in favour of Palestine is de facto, a protest against Israel, let alone a protest aimed at Jews. Similarly, most civilised people across the globe oppose genocide and war crimes, even if an increasingly right-wing polity in Britain seeks to abandon all such civilised behaviour, for example, in abandoning the European Convention on Human Rights. So, how can you, then, oppose a protest against an actual genocide that is continuing day after day, conducted by the Zionist regime? Opposing that genocide, does not equate, even, to opposing the continued existence of the Zionist state that is undertaking that genocide. It only equates to insisting that that state desist in its actions, just as demands that the Russian state desist from its war against Ukraine does not equate to a demand that Russia continue to exist. Even less can it be argued that a protest against an ongoing genocide is in any way a protest aimed at Jews, let alone Jews living in Britain.
Seeming to recognise that they had been caught out in this flawed logic and hypocrisy, the Zionist/imperialist politicians and media changed to a different tack. They moved from demands that the protests be cancelled because of being seen to be threatening to British Jews, to demands that they be postponed, because they would drain police resources that would otherwise be utilised to protect Jewish communities. But, none of the protests have been violent protests. For the number of people taking part, during the whole period of the last three years, fewer people have been arrested than at an average football match. The logic would rather be that to save police resources, all current football matches be postponed! Good luck trying to argue for that one.
Moreover, most of the arrests that have taken place, are not for any kind of violent behaviour, but have been arrests of people for carrying flags or placards. Oddly we do not see the same kind of zealous pursuit of racists and fascists for carrying flags and placards, in a threatening manner, nor for vandalising property by illegally erecting flags, or daubing paint on road signs. If the police and politicians were worried about a real extensive threat to Jewish communities over the weekend, then they would have prioritised their scarce resources to that task, and not to policing and arresting a load of peaceful protesters, opposing genocide.
When it comes to the protests opposing the banning of Palestine Action, the logical gymnastics have been even more absurd. Firstly, it was claimed that because Palestine Action is a proscribed “terrorist” organisation, it was already illegal to protest in favour of it. That is simply not true. It is illegal to support Palestine Action, as an organisation, but it is not illegal to protest against the government's decision to proscribe it, which itself is being challenged in the courts, nor to protest in favour of that ban being lifted, nor is it illegal to protest in favour of the aims of Palestine Action, i.e. to prevent the genocide in Gaza, and the government's facilitation of that genocide by the supply of military equipment. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of all, under the Genocide Convention, to which Britain is a signatory, to prevent such genocide. It is the British government that is acting illegally.
So, if the argument is that police resources are being used to arrest a bunch of peaceful grannies sitting holding placards, and interfering with no one other than a few pigeons in Trafalgar Square, rather than protecting Jewish communities, the question is, do they not have a brain so as to decide which is the most pressing use of those resources? If police resources, week after week, are being used to police and arrest hundreds of grannies and vicars, who have only turned out because the British government, as it becomes aver more authoritarian, has passed a piece of ridiculous legislation declaring Palestine Action to be a terrorist organisation, then, the responsibility for that lies, primarily with the government, which should lift that ban, and secondly with the police for using their resources to implement that ridiculous ban, rather than protecting Jewish and other minority communities.
Protesting against the government's ridiculous ban, does not equate to supporting Palestine Action as an organisation. I do not support Starmer's reactionary Blue Labour, but I would oppose it being banned by some future government. As a Marxist, I do not support Palestine Action, and its petty-bourgeois, individualistic acts of sabotage. Rather, I support the mass action of the working-class to achieve those ends, as with the general strike being organised in Italy. But, that does not mean that I am indifferent to the actions of the state to ban Palestine Action, and that same state if allowed to continue unchallenged, would soon turn its attention to banning any actual mass action by the working-class.
All around the hypocrisy and contradictions of Zionism/imperialism are being exposed more clearly by the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment