We Need a New Palestine Solidarity Organisation since PSC is neither Democratic, Anti-Zionist or Politically Coherent
In 1982, just before Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Operation Peace for Galilee, a group of about 15 of us decided, at a meeting held at the University of London Union, to form Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
PSC then was anti-Zionist calling for a democratic, secular state in Palestine. This was a very different period from today. There was a radical Labour administration at the Greater London Council under Ken Livingstone which gave us support. There was the Miners’ Strike in 1984-5. PSC fitted into all of this activism.
The decay in PSC began with the Oslo Accords, the single greatest political defeat for the Palestinians since the Nakba. It led to the legitimisation of Zionism as the United Nations overturned Resolution 3379 of 10 November 1975, which stated that Zionism was a form of racism.
Caroline Lucas, Brighton’s Green MP, signed a statement with Tory racists calling for David Miller to be Sacked
As a result of Oslo, on 16 November 1991 the UN passed Resolution 46/86 overturning Resolution 3379. In exchange for minor concessions the PLO agreed to recognise the Israeli state.
In 1993 PSC voted at an Emergency AGM to endorse the Oslo Accords believing that Israel was going to agree to a Palestinian state. As I predicted at the time, the Oslo Accords, with the Palestinian Authority as Israel’s military subcontractor, substituted the faces of Israeli police for Palestinian ones.
I resigned from PSC and it wasn’t until 2005 that I rejoined at the invitation of PSC’s then General Secretary, Betty Hunter.
On 6 April 2022 I resigned again when PSC removed opposition to Zionism from a new Constitution. In August 2022 I posted an email exchange I had had with Ben Jamal, PSC’s Director concerning the reasons for my resignation.
I did not take this step lightly but I felt that to remain a member of an organisation which was politically bankrupt and which consistently tried to appease the British Establishment and the Zionists was pointless.
Imagine the Anti-Apartheid Movement confining itself to opposing human rights abuses by the South African state whilst taking no position on Apartheid itself. By refusing to oppose Zionism, PSC refuses to oppose the ideology of the Israeli state that lies at the heart of its Jewish supremacist policies and ethnic cleansing.
PSC’s Disastrous Failure to Oppose the ‘Anti-Semitism’ Attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Left
PSC’s most egregious error was to ignore the Zionist attacks on Corbyn and the newly resurgent Labour Left. Corbyn had been PSC’s main parliamentary supporter. The failure to stand up to those crying ‘anti-Semitism’ was a fatal error that led to a serious defeat for the whole Palestine solidarity movement. It stemmed from PSC’s desire to present itself to Britain’s pro-Zionist Establishment as a safe and trustworthy pair of hands.
In March 2016 I was singled out by the Jewish Labour Movement and suspended by the Labour Party. I wrote to PSC Secretary Ben Sofa on 11 April 2016 asking why PSC had been silent over the ‘anti-Semitism’ attaacks. Ben responded on 20 April in what was a master class in complacency. He wrote that
‘I make no apology for the fact that we do not engage in every debate some would wish to involve us in.’
First I was suspended, then Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone and Marc Wadsworth. More were to follow as Corbyn buckled. Throughout this time PSC did absolutely nothing. As far as they were concerned what was happening in the Labour Party was a foreign country yet, as we have seen, the Zionists’ ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign spread into virtually every area of society.
PSC seemed oblivious to how false allegations of anti-Semitism were being used to undermine solidarity with the Palestinians. They preferred engaging in routine activities to taking on the Zionist enemy.
When the Zionists, who at first pretended that their opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’ had nothing to do with Palestine, proposed that Labour adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which conflated anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, PSC continued to do nothing. Seven of the IHRA’s 11 ‘examples’ of anti-Semitism were to do with Israel not Jews. PSC refused to even support a picket of Labour’s National Executive in September 2019 which approved the IHRA.
As Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge wrote in Defining Anti-Semitism, the IHRA ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite.’
PSC confined themselves to writing letters to local authorities urging them not to adopt the IHRA. PSC made a written submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry and it helped commission an Opinion on the IHRA from Hugh Tomlinson QC and that was it.
PSC’s Alliance with the Trade Union Bureaucracy
PSC’s main achievement had been in the trade union movement. Most trade unions were affiliated to it. PSC could have used these affiliations to fight back against the adoption of the IHRA by increasing numbers of civil society groups at the behest of the Jewish Labour Movement and the Israeli Embassy funded Labour Friends of Israel. The trade unions controlled the Labour Party. PSC could have supported Corbyn against his Zionist detractors but they chose not to.
When PSC held a trade union conference in October 2019 I distributed leaflets opposing the IHRA at the conference. Prior to this I had written, as had Brighton and Hove PSC, to Ben Sofa and Ben Jamal, PSC’s Director, asking that the IHRA be placed on the agenda of the conference. What was Jamal’s response? To throw me out of the conference for not having permission to distribute the leaflets! Suffice to say the IHRA was not on the agenda.
The IHRA and the Sacking of David Miller
At a time when the IHRA was being used to attack activists and academics, PSC sat on the sidelines. Over 150 local authorities had adopted the IHRA. Big Ride for Palestine was banned by Tower Hamlets council.
One particularly outrageous case was where the misnamed Campaign Against Antisemitism attempted to get Rebecca Gould, an academic at Bristol University sacked, because of an article ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’ which she had written on how the Holocaust and ‘the spectre of anti-Semitism’ is used to suppress discussion of Palestinian oppression. Even Kenneth Stern, the person who drafted the IHRA, condemned this attack as ‘McCarthy like’ and ‘chilling’.
Also at Bristol University Professor David Miller was dismissed as a result of a Zionist witchhunt. PSC refused to support David because his research was into the Zionist lobby. Instead they put out an anodyne statement which implicitly criticised him:
When addressing such issues, it is crucial to apply depth, context, and clarity, and to avoid narratives that oversimplify the interlinks between groups which oppose actions in support of Palestinian rights, and Israeli state actors. Doing so obscures our understanding of the way political actors’ function. At worst, it can risk drawing on anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power.
Whilst some have criticised Professor Miller for lacking such depth and clarity in the way he has couched his remarks, those leading the call for Professor Miller to be sacked are straightforwardly asserting that to define Zionism as a movement and political ideology that is racist is inherently anti-Semitic.
After Miller’s dismissal PSC put out another statement which instead of condemning his dismissal called it ‘deeply concerning and sets a dangerous precedent’. It also failed to call for his reinstatement.
Today David Miller has been vindicated after an Employment Tribunal ruled that he had been unfairly dismissed and that anti-Zionism was a protected belief under the Equality Act 2000.
I have written asking Caroline Lucas to Apologise for Her Previous Support for David Miller’s Dismissal
Internationally the Zionist campaign to target anti-Zionists via the IHRA was proceeding apace. The Bundestag in May 2019 condemned BDS as ‘anti-Semitic’.
Why then did PSC confine its activities to making paper submissions and writing letters? The reason was PSC didn’t want to offend the trade union leaders who had given the IHRA their support and they didn’t want to jeopardise their affiliations by going to rank and file trade union members.
One of the most despicable of Starmer’s supporters Lisa Nandy, a vociferous supporter of Israel’s genocide in Gaza that PSC put on its platforms
Two States or a Unitary State? A Failure to Explain What PSC Wants to Achieve
PSC accepted that Israel was an Apartheid State but it refused to draw the obvious conclusions, namely that if Israel was an apartheid, state, then it had to go. It was afraid of saying that a Jewish state was an inherently racist state.
This was not a difficult thing to do. In January 2021 B’tselem, had not only declared that Israel was an apartheid state but that there was a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Jewish Supremacy was not a phrase PSC used.
This was followed up in April 2021 by Human Rights Watch which declared ‘A Threshold Crossed – Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution.’ A year later Amnesty International produced a Report, ‘Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians’.
Declaring for a unitary, democratic secular state was not difficult, except that PSC, under the control of a tiny ex-Trotskyist group Socialist Action, alongside various remnants of what had been the International Marxist Group, were unwilling to do so.
In 2009 I pointed to the role in PSC of the secretive Socialist Action group which with Jon Lansman had colluded in the ‘anti-Semitism’ witch-hunt in the Labour Party which the Jewish Chronicle then cited.
Btselem, which started life as a liberal Zionist group, declared that
‘More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea under a single rule.’
When Jenny Tonge Came Under Criticism From the Right-Wing Press PSC Abandoned Her
There is already a single state in Palestine but one in which half the population have no civil or political rights. PSC Executive’s pretext for refusing to declare in favour of a unitary state was that it was up to the Palestinians to decide this question but Palestinians are in no position to make any decision but it is clear that given the choice Palestinians want to live in the whole of historic Palestine.
An article for the Washington institute for Near Eastern Policy explained that
the two-state solution (this) is no longer a popular position among Palestinians. Less than 40 percent of the Palestinian public—in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—supports it over one-state alternatives. Support for a two-state solution has declined steadily since 2018.
Further, most Palestinians believe that a two-state solution is unlikely to emerge from the conflict. Instead, a majority of them say they prefer to reclaim all of historic Palestine, including the pre-1967 Israel. A one-state solution with Arabs and Jews holding equal rights comes in second. Similarly, recent polling from PCPSR finds support among Palestinians and Israeli Jews for a two-state solutionhas dropped to 43 percent and 42 percent, respectively.
But even if Palestinians did support a two-state solution then that would only be because a state in the whole of Palestine was deemed impossible to achieve. PSC is not addressing Palestinians but British people. When people ask what we would like to see we should be clear – one state with equal rights for Jews and Arabs.
One state was the demand of the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa. Only far-right White racists wanted a White state. The two-state solution in Palestine, which the West supports, is an apartheid neo-colonial solution. It leaves a racist Jewish state intact.
The real reason why PSC won’t support a one state solution is the trade unions. All Britain’s unions support 2 States. This allows them to support both the Palestinians and the Zionists. Not for the first time trade union leaders have faced both ways. On the one hand supporting Israel and on the other supporting its victims.
We saw this during the height of the false anti-Semitism campaign. Dave Prentis, the General Secretary of UNISON, pledged his support for the Palestinians and on the other hand wrote in the New Statesman ‘Why Labour must adopt the full IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.’
Why could Prentis and other union leaders do this? Because historically the unions have been supporters of British imperialism. Instead of confronting unions with the choice of supporting an apartheid state or a democratic state, two states allows them to face both ways at the same time. They can support Israel (dressed up as opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’) and also support the Palestinians. It enables people like Prentis to work openly with the JLM.
Palestine Solidarity Campaign is a Human Rights NGO not a Political, Campaigning Organisation
Because PSC supports a two-state solution i.e. a ‘Jewish’ state and a Palestinian state, it sees its role as primarily one of opposing human rights abuses and in the current context Israel’s genocide. It allows the field to be clear for the Zionists and their ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign.
Since October 7 there have been a number of very large demonstrations in support of the Palestinians in Gaza. PSC has been one of 6 organisations – CND, Stop the War Coalition, Friends of Al Aqsa, the Palestinian Forum and the Muslim Association of Britain organising the demonstrations. By itself PSC is incapable, given its past record, of mobilising more than 5,000 people. In reality the demonstrations built themselves as people spontaneously joined them, appalled as they were by the continuing genocide in Gaza.
PSC’s Strategy of ‘Mainstreaming’
Emily Thornberry at Labour Friends of Israel dinner
The strategy of PSC is to mainstream the issue of Palestine. What this means is attempting to get the British state to adopt a pro-Palestinian position by winning over the Establishment. It is doomed to failure, as we have seen over Gaza, because it fails to take account of the fact that the British state is an imperialist state. The British Establishment is committed to its financial, economic and political interests world wide. Palestinians come very far down their list of priorities.
Anti-imperialism plays no part in PSC’s politics. That is why PSC has put on its platform vile Zionists like Emily Thornberry who declared at an LFI dinner that ‘Israel is a Beacon of Freedom and Democracy’ before going on to say that supporters of the Palestinians (who she called ‘anti-Semites’) should be ‘drummed out of the party.’
Palestine Solidarity Campaign as a Wannabee Establishment Group
PSC and its Director Ben Jamal reacted with horror when Palestine Action, which was set up about 4 years ago, began a campaign of direct action against Elbit’s arms factories and those who were trading with it. They immediately attacked it, got the Boycott National Committee to do the same and issued bogus legal advice about the dangers of PSC branches supporting Palestine Action.
However the popularity of PA amongst PSC activists led PSC’s Executive to have to accept support for PA at the 2022 conference. However PSC have done zilch to implement that policy.
When Mick Napier and I were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 before Xmas Electronic Intifada contacted them. What was their reaction? ‘No one is available to comment’. The British State is using ‘terrorism’ against Palestine solidarity activists and PSC has nothing to say about this attack on our freedom to speak out on Palestine.
PSC Attacks Its Own Members
PSC took fright when the 7 October breakout from Gaza concentration camp happened. They demanded that Manchester PSC take down a post from its website supporting the breakout. Harry Cole, political editor of The Sun, called the Manchester post “appalling” and suggested it was a matter for the police.
Despite the branch complying with PSC’s demands, PSC decided to suspend the officers of Manchester PSC anyway. As a result Manchester PSC has formally cut ties with PSC nationally and is now an independent group. See UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign punishes Manchester branch
PSC Refuses to Condemn the Palestinian Authority
Despite its role as Israel’s military subcontractor, arresting Palestinians and handing them over to Israel, PSC has refused to utter a word of criticism of this Quisling Authority. A third of the PA’s budget goes on security, the highest in the world. Its security forces operate on behalf of the Israeli military. The PA are used to suppress demonstrations and opposition by Palestinians to Israel’s occupation. Mahmoud Abbas, its notional ‘President’ considers cooperation between the Israeli state and the PA as ‘sacred.
The security services of the PA are a bunch of thugs who in August 2021 murdered Palestinian activist Nizar Banat. My resolution to PSC AGM condemning his murder was opposed by PSC Executive and the sheep present voted it down.
The invasion of Gaza by Israel and the resulting genocide have created a mass movement in support of the Palestinians. That movement will not always be around although Israel’s image will have been irreparably damaged. It is important that the opportunity should be taken now, when most groups that have sprung up – from Parents for Palestine to School students groups – have no connection with PSC to take steps to form a genuine, anti-imperialist solidarity movement and not a glorified NGO. We have no time to lose.
Tony Greenstein
