Posts
Why was Moshé Machover expelled
from the Labour Party on 4 October for anti-Semitism? Machover, an emeritus
professor of mathematics, was born in Israel and has been a lifelong socialist,
anti-racist and critic of Israeli policy. For the Labour Party’s Legal Queries
Unit to allege that he has been anti-Semitic is ludicrous, so much so that
there has been widespread support for Machover from within the Labour Party
itself. But this absurdity reflects two things that stem from a third:
imperialist politics.
Israel and imperialist politics
Firstly, there is the attempt by
supporters of Israel to label all critics of that 1948 creature of imperialism
as being anti-Semitic. This is a longstanding policy of Israeli governments, their
foreign embassies and support groups. But this Israeli policy has become more
hysterical in recent years as opposition to their oppression of Palestinians
has become more widespread, and as Israel has found itself facing a more
uncertain future. A series of disasters in the Middle East for imperial policy
– from Iraq, to Libya, Syria and the rise of Islamic State – has led the major
powers to play a more direct role in the region, a development that threatens
to sideline the traditional Israeli role as policeman for these powers.
Secondly, a keystone of UK
foreign policy has been to support Israel. This has been based upon Israel’s
value in helping undermine Arab nationalism. An early example was the 1956 Suez
fiasco, a deal between the UK, France and Israel to stage an invasion of Egypt
to try and depose Egypt’s President Nasser. Another little noted example is how
Israel fostered the growth of Hamas in the 1980s to undermine the Palestinian
Liberation Organisation. This promotion of an Islamist group to defeat an enemy
has backfired, as have similar imperial enterprises like backing Al-Qaeda (in
Afghanistan, etc) and Islamic State (in Iraq, Syria, etc).
That Israel could play a role
for different major powers was evident even before the state’s foundation in
1948,[1]
following a resolution from the United Nations to replace the former British
Mandate over Palestine and partition the territory.[2]
But the creation of Israel was based upon a fundamental injustice: Palestinians
were made to pay the price for the European slaughter of Jews in the
previous decade![3] From its
birth, the military and terror forces of the new Israeli state seized
Palestinian land and property, through mass expulsions and murder.
The razing of Palestinian
villages and destroying signs of Palestinian culture and society, even
uprooting olive groves, tries to construct the Zionist myth of ‘a land without
people for a people without land’. These crimes were prettified by the Jewish
National Fund, a ‘charity’ that gives Palestinian land to those who claim to be
Jewish. Many UK Conservative Party and Labour Party leaders have supported this
organisation – most recently Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and
Theresa May.[4]
The British Labour Party’s links
to Israel were acknowledged in the autobiography of a senior Labour politician,
Denis Healey, The Time of My Life, published in 1989. He noted that ‘the
Labour Party was overwhelmingly Zionist, and had far closer relations with
Israel than the Conservatives – apart from a small group of Tory Zionists such
as Churchill himself, Julian Amery and Hugh Fraser’. This relationship was
often based upon Labour’s racism towards Arabs, and was supported by Labour’s
notion that European Jews could bring ‘civilisation’ to the Middle East in a
way that would also be aligned with British interests.[5]
Supporting the Palestinians?
One political party leader for
whom endorsing the Jewish National Fund is off limits is Labour’s Jeremy
Corbyn. But, to go back to my opening question, how then did Moshé Machover’s
expulsion from the Labour Party occur when the leader of the Labour Party
supports the Palestinians?
Denials of Palestinian rights by
the Israeli state have been so outrageous that one would have to be an
accomplished ignoramus, an anti-social psychopath, or an ardent Zionist, not to
have any sympathy with the Palestinians. The Israeli oppression of the near two
million people in Gaza, which has become the world’s largest prison camp,
possibly stands out most. These things have now led to a smaller number of
Labour MPs to sign up for membership of the Labour Friends of Israel lobby
group.[6]
But what form does that sympathy take for Jeremy Corbyn? It is the ‘two-state
solution’ and an acceptance of the 1948 deal that set up the Israeli state in
the first place.
At the Labour Party conference
in September 2017, Corbyn said: ‘Let’s give real support to end the oppression
of the Palestinian people, the 50-year occupation and illegal settlement
expansion and move to a genuine two-state solution of the Israel-Palestine
conflict’.
For Corbyn, the ‘50 year’ point
only refers to Israel’s extension of its borders to seize yet more land in the
1967 war with other Arab states. Similarly, the ‘settlement’ point refers only
to the further seizure of land that has continued since 1967, ones that
are illegal even under United Nations law – but violations of which have gone
unpunished, given the service that Israel has provided for the major powers
that run the world. The failure to recognise the crime of 1948 and the setting
up of Israel in the first place – on the majority of Palestinian land –
reflects an all-too common view, even among those sympathetic to the
Palestinians, like Corbyn.
Getting back to the 1948 set up
would endorse the UN decision for the two states, one led especially by the US,
but also by the Soviet Union (despite the Balfour Declaration, the UK abstained
in the UN’s 1947 vote on partitioning Palestine, not wishing to damage its
position with other Arab countries). A 1948 starting point would also leave unchallenged
the additional Zionist seizure of land at that time, beyond what was envisaged
by the UN’s calculation, let alone the additional annexation of land in later
years.
Corbyn’s endorsement of a ‘two
state solution’ does not recognise that one of the parties has the imperial
jackboot on its neck and a gun to its head in any negotiations. It is also out
of bounds for Israel, given the nature of the Israeli state. A state that
cannot even define its borders, a state that has an ethnic definition of citizenship,
a state that has promoted the influx of hundreds of thousands of subsidised
settlers on Palestinian land – that state is hardly likely to agree a return to
pre-1967 borders. Nevertheless, a minimum demand on the Israelis to achieve
some justice for the Palestinians remains: Give back the land you have stolen!
The imperial modus operandi
is that when people rise up against injustice they are killed, or at least
prevented from upsetting plans, perhaps by co-opting their leaders.
Palestinians have rarely been in the latter, more ‘lucky’ situation, so they
remain terrorised and defamed. However, the image of continual Palestinian
oppression can still be an embarrassing bloodstain on those who talk about the
values of western democracy.
Changing times
For Jeremy Corbyn to raise the
issue of Palestine in his Labour Party conference speech might be seen as a
breakthrough. Until now, there has not been the slightest indication that the
Labour Party would move from its faithful backing of the global power structure
that has Israel as its armed guard against Arab nationalism. But the rise to
prominence of Corbyn’s view reflects a subtle change in how Israel is now seen
by the major powers.
Israel’s increasingly
reactionary policies have become a problem for politicians claiming to hold a
progressive view, especially under Netanyahu’s Likud Party. No longer can
pro-Zionist Labour politicians point to those Potemkin villages, known as kibbutzim,
as examples of socialism in action. For every celebration of rejuvenating
desert land, there are dozens of Israeli bulldozers destroying Palestinian
homes, and systematic brutality meted out to Palestinians by Israeli police,
soldiers and settlers. For those of a more conservative outlook, who do not
worry about such things, Israel is also beginning to be seen as more of a
troublemaker than a useful ally.
The structure of imperial
support for Israel was built upon acceptance of its immunity from UN
resolutions, no matter what it does, an immunity backed especially by the US.
That has worked well before, but now less so, given that a more overtly
pro-Israel Donald Trump also tramples liberal opinion in the wider world. If this
US backs Israel, and the US is overturning the established order with an
‘America First’ policy, then it indirectly also helps to undermine acceptance
of Israel’s policies by the other powers. For now, although maybe not for much
longer, the traditional political support for Israel stays in place. But its
foundations are being eroded.
These crumbling foundations are
the reason the Labour Party machine is now accusing Moshé Machover, a committed
socialist and anti-racist, of anti-Semitism. With support for Israel under
threat, it is urgent for pro-Israel advocates to argue that being anti-Zionist
is also to be anti-Semitic. One lesson from World War Two is that this
version of racism is not acceptable in polite company, so this smear is a way
of indirectly sustaining support for Israel.
The role Israel plays for
imperialism has probably not yet diminished enough to lead UK political parties
to criticise its policies in any way that has consequence. In line with this, I
would not expect Jeremy Corbyn to reject the absurd allegations against Moshé
Machover. The issue is one of imperialist politics, not common sense. Even if
Corbyn did, a socialist should not look for a place in the pro-imperialist
Labour Party.
[1] For example,
the French assisted Zionist militias in their war against the British prior to
1948, reflecting the rivalry of the two powers in the region. See James Barr, A
Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East,
2011.
[2] Just to make
clear, I do not accept that the United Nations, dominated by the major-powers,
can be considered as some kind of neutral or fair arbiter of justice. The
British state, much weakened by the mid-1940s, was in no position to manage its
Palestine Mandate any longer, which was why it left the decision to the UN. The
decision to set up a ‘national home’ for ‘Jewish people’ on Palestinian land
was based partly upon Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration, a deliberately
ambiguous and deceitful document that promised both a Jewish state and that the
rights of the local non-Jewish population in Palestine would not be harmed.
Labour had the same idea for a Jewish state before this declaration and also
fully supported it when it was published.
[3] Germany has
been singled out for this slaughter, but this ignores the other western and
eastern European countries who also took part in the crime. The refusal of the
US and the UK to accept more than a token number of Jewish refugees in the
1930s and 1940s should also be noted.
[4] The notion
that Israel is the ‘ethnic homeland’ of people calling themselves Jewish is
rubbish. For example, historians such as Shlomo Sand (see his Invention of
the Jewish people, 2009) document how followers of Judaism were ardent
proselytisers and converted Europeans and Asians, and others, to their faith
over many centuries. So, far from all current ‘Jews’ being able to trace back
their ethnic heritage to ancient Israel, they mostly come from elsewhere. In
any case, the point comes down to imperialism – where the political
institutions stand in relation to the major powers – not to ethnicity.
