“Israel was one of the greatest experiments in the modern world.”
To say that since 7 October 2023, the world has reorientated its focus on Palestine is an understatement. What many of us are witnessing, in real-time and virtually 24 hours a day, is a people resisting its own genocide, in conjunction with Western imperialism unequivocally and unreservedly supporting the state of Israel. The overwhelming pressure felt by the Palestinian people can only be understood via the West’s largest cheerleaders, who have fundamentally condemned its people to oblivion. And of course, wherever land theft, the use of concentration camps, and unrelenting military support are being administered, we can rest assured that the British empire is at the heart of the violence.
Over the ensuing weeks, we have witnessed both isles of the British political class, the media class, and its sycophants salivate over the potential of Palestine being destroyed. This possible outcome would ensure that the West’s interests would be championed for the foreseeable future in the region. Both political parties have reinforced their positions without any shred of ambiguity. The Conservative party’s support is to be expected, as much of the political discourse since Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour Leader who was ousted from his party has been shaped by criticisms of the state of Israel. However, Labour’s response, for many, has been disappointing. The once party for the “working classes” has also shown similar, if not more damning and deranged support for Israel. As liberals waste their time trying to hold the party to account or attempting to appeal to the party’s “better nature” a more useful exercise would be to understand that 1. the Labour Party is the party of British imperialism, and 2. the Labour Party is a Zionist party.
To further understand the position of Labour, we must consult Labour’s historical record on the matter, and its championing of Zionism. Zionism and anti-Zionism have saturated political discourse over the last month, with many contributions being made in support of the Israeli state ideology and the ideology that underpinned European settler colonialism in the region. Its counterweight, anti-Zionism, a movement predominately taken up by the Jewish anti-imperialist struggle, has also seen a boost in popularity via figures such as Novara media contributors, Rivkah Brown and Barnaby Raine, whose much-needed interventions, both in the media and on the ground have cut through much of the imperial propaganda in circulation alongside the actions taken by Black-Jewish Alliance. As Zionists proclaim “never again” which only refers to the settler and in support of the genocide of Palestinians, anti-Zionists vehemently understand that call to mean in relation to all racial colonial violence.
Briefly, when referring to Zionism, it is imperative to understand its historical roots in Europe, the movements longing for empire, and the antisemitism in Europe. The father of modern/political Zionism, Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century, assessed the ongoing antisemitism in Europe, and in response concluded that European Jews needed a homeland, a “nation-state” of their own. However, it must be stressed, that while the Jews of Europe were experiencing ongoing discrimination and had been for centuries in Europe, Herzl was an assimilationist who coveted Western imperialism and wanted to be incorporated within the ranks of White, Christian, bourgeois society. To do so, he understood that Zionism must align itself with Western empires for the Zionist movement to achieve its objectives. Herzl aligned himself with prolific imperialists of the day, such as Cecil Rhodes. He solicited the support of major figures like Rhodes to further legitimize his desire for a state: “What Herzl sought was a Rhodes certificate for colonial viability and desirability.” Embedded within the ideology exists a glaring and violent contradiction: a people’s liberation cannot begin with the genocide of another. This contradiction is barely considered within the movement, for their goals are to supplant the indigenous by any means necessary. The ambitions of Zionists are not too far different from any imperial or settler project which is: to subjugate the indigenous via a national state-making project. In the case of Israel, early Zionist thinkers understood that this would be highly beneficial to the imperialists of their time and as we see in contemporary politics, this remains true as reinforced “throughout the five-hundred-year history of Western empires, the security of European colonizers has trumped the security and independence of the colonized.”
Zionists seek to launder the reputation of earlier Zionist pioneers. Detaching the ideology from its historical development seeks to mystify it and provide cover from the European settler colonial project that it is. Liberal Zionists, in particular, will argue that they/we can be both in support of the Palestinian liberation, alongside regurgitating that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Such mental gymnastics are deployed to confuse onlookers and conceal the power dynamic at play being one of the oppressors and the oppressed. We must not allow Israeli sympathizers and their acolytes to rewrite the history of violence enacted upon Palestine, nor should we allow them to reframe the “conflict” as two sides with equal power and force. Israel wields insurmountable amounts of influence and power over Palestinians (granted by Western imperialism), such as restricting its access to water and water-related infrastructure. Zionism presents itself as a liberatory ideology, one that seeks to address the racial domination of Jews throughout history. However, we must understand what such an ideology looks like from the perspective of Palestinians. From the perspective of the oppressed, it has not meant liberation or freedom, but one that has governed the politics of reality for Palestine for 75 years. Zionism dictates who has access to land, shelter, food, and of course, freedom. For Palestinians, it has been a project of imperial and colonial ambitions, that has sought to erase Palestine from history for “imperialism was the theory, colonialism the practice of changing the uselessly unoccupied territories of the world into useful new versions of the European metropolitan society.”
Much of the violence of today can be attributed to the Balfour Declaration officiated on 2 November 1917 which solidified Britain’s imperial ambitions abroad and Zionism’s hold over the region. Before the Balfour Declaration, Labour’s response to the ongoing war, revolutionary Russia, and persecution of Jews in Europe was to co-opt them into the project of empire and warfare. Under the guise of the “Memorandum on the Issues of the War,” Labour had made its support for Zionism clear, manifesting as Palestine becoming “a free State under international guarantee,” and with the support of the TUC on 28 December 2017 at Labour Party Conference, Labour incorporated Zionism into its operating logic. Labour’s commitment to Zionism has seen the party cheer on some of the most abhorrent acts we have seen in present times.
Labour’s pivot towards the settler project can be articulated through various means. With regards to the Memorandum on the Issues of War, it was to bolster the war effort and attract Jews across the world to identify with the British Empire. Other factors also include recruiting some of the radical elements of European Jews as many had been central to revolutionary struggles that took place in Russia. However, as discussed above, the primary and most central reason for adopting Zionism into the central mechanics of the Labour Party was to ensure that its interests were maintained in the region. Antisemitism was and is still prevalent within Europe and globally and Labour’s position on that has not changed, nor has its ability to pit minoritized groups against one another. For Labour, and much like others from the ruling elite, the creation of Israel enabled Europe to offload its Jewish populations into Palestine alongside the retribution and justice that should have taken place after the Holocaust. Coupled with racist immigration policies, and violence across Europe, Britain had both created the solution to their problem whilst simultaneously reinforcing the problem along its borders.
In contemporary society, Labour now positions itself as the party that has successfully weeded out antisemitism from the party. During the Corbyn years, every aspect of the British state pivoted towards destroying Corbyn’s record and reputation alongside ensuring that Labour suffered its worst defeat in 2019, all in the name of protecting British Jews from antisemitism. One of the resounding defeats was the implementation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism which sought to curtail criticism of Israel as a racist state. The installation of Sir Keir Starmer as Labour Leader saw a purge of prominent left-wing Jews who routinely criticized Israel as an apartheid state. The years that followed Corbyn ensured that Labour was to be viewed as a Zionist imperialist party and those that contested this were vilified and branded as antisemitic.
Powerful lobby groups also have the ear of Labour, which aims to further normalize relationships between Israel and the Labour Party. Such a relationship sees Labour being bankrolled by those profiteering from the suffering of Palestinians. Figures such as Gary Lubner were instrumental in weakening international sanctions placed on South Afrika during its apartheid regime. The interests of capital do govern Labour and much of the political class more broadly, however, it must be stressed that those who demand justice for Palestine must also oppose antisemitism. Antisemitic tropes are often deployed by lobby groups to deflect away from the violence that they are profiting from, such as tired tropes that seek to conspiratorially accuse Jews of controlling the governments of the world. It is fundamentally important to dislodge criticism of Israel from those who seek to opportunistically stand with Palestine as a means to use the movement as a vector for their racism.
Many charged Labour with weaponizing antisemitism, scholars such as Alana Lentin sought to do away with such a reductive analysis and thus, encouraged us to think about the political utility that allowed racist parties and states to adopt an antisemitic position: “the political utility of antisemitism today is not illuminate the operations of race, but rather to obscure them (Why Race Still Matters)”. Of course, within the context of Britain’s long history of racial domination both at home and abroad, capturing the language of antiracism enabled Britain and Labour to rewrite their history of antisemitism and the racial domination of European Jews more broadly. This utility also allowed the state to dictate the parameters of what constituted antiracism (antiracism from above) as one that disciplines and sidelines all other forms of racism and positions British Jews in opposition to other racialized groups. As we see playing out over the last few weeks, the British state is allowed to step in and reframe the rules of engagement with the state of Israel, conflating it with all Jews and framing those that stand in solidarity with Palestinians as antisemitic or participating in “hate marches.”
Discourses played out in the media also expose the liberal perception of Labour as one that would support a ceasefire. Contrary to this, the party has given a blank cheque to Israel to act without impunity, as stated by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer in his interview on LBC, whereby the strapline “Israel has the right to defend herself” was deployed to justify the genocide of Palestine and the withholding of vital resources, which was also parroted by chief-negro-imperialist and self-appointed Englishman, David Lammy.
Liberal sensibilities would be shocked, as much of Britain’s imperial history has been hidden, or offshored. As the historical record shows, the party is committed to Zionist expansion and the settler regime in the region as this is core to the operating logic of British imperialism, capitalism, and racism, which binds together all forms of genocidal justifications. Technologies of violence are developed inside the imperial core and then are exported out across the world, and in the case of Palestine, the U.K. has no plans to halt the sale of arms to Israel. On 15 November 2023, dozens of Labour MPs further cemented the Zionist traditions of the party by overwhelmingly abstaining from calling a ceasefire, fundamentally providing cover for Israel and explicitly supporting the genocide of a people. Unambiguously, those who have sided with Israel have also signed off on the destruction of Palestine. The historical ledger should be clear on the fact that when given the chance to rise to the occasion, Labour MPs chose almost unanimously to seal the fate of Palestine.
Perhaps, the need to lament Labour’s position stems from a place within the electorate that would surely not believe that Starmer would endorse a ceasefire. Once we do away with such a redundant analysis, we understand that Labour is a willing collaborator in the genocide of Palestine, as well as the Labour aristocracy and Labour movement generally. Subsequently, once we abandon such rhetoric, we will be able to draw up a better roadmap for support of the Palestinian resistance and to apply pressure on both sides of the political aisle. The actions of Palestine Action demonstrate a more concrete approach to decolonization by attacking the institutions that develop weapons used on Palestinians. Of course, in conjunction, we must take to the streets in the name of freedom and renounce our government’s actions. As Palestine fights for its freedom, we too, should show solidarity and support and shame the MPs and media class who cheer for Israel. It must always be made abundantly plain that “as an analytical matter, it is clear that resistance is the consequence of enduring occupation or colonial rule.”