My victory at the Employment Tribunal against Bristol University in February is a victory for all those working for the cause of Palestine. The Tribunal confirmed that I had been wrongly dismissed (because the university had not properly investigated me or properly evaluated its investigation). More importantly, it also declared both that I had been sacked for my anti-Zionist views and that such views ought to be “protected philosophical beliefs” under the terms of the Equality Act 2010. This means that it is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of such views. This is welcome in that it protect all those in the UK in employment.  But it is much more significant in that it drives a coach and horses through the Tel Aviv weapon of choice: the weaponization of anti-Semitism. This weapon has been developed and deployed for more than half a century starting with the declaration of Abba Eban, the Israeli Foreign Minister, in a US speech in 1972 that “Anti-Zionism is the new antisemitism”. Now, according to the British courts, that is emphatically not the case.

So, this ruling protects everyone pushing back against the misuse of the concept of “anti-Semitism”. But let’s also be clear:  This victory was won in the teeth of stiff opposition from the Zionist movement and indeed from some elements of the “pro-Palestine” movement. Though it will protect the latter too, the victory was won through a very different strategy than that adopted by the “solidarity” movement. 

The distinction is best illustrated by discussing the political assassination of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party.  He was repeatedly advised to “apologise” and move on, in relation to patently manufactured allegations of “antisemitism”. Worse, it was only once Corbyn had a full grasp of the party machinery with the appointment of Jenni Formby as General Secretary, that the witch-hunt against pro-Palestine activists massively intensified. This was because Zionist assumptions about “antisemitism on the Left” had been internalised by the people appointed by Corbyn to deal with complaints about the issue.

As a result, one by one, Corbyn’s strongest supporters were thrown under the bus, including thousands of decent supporters of the Palestinian cause. It also included high profile names such as Ken Livingstone, Marc Wadsworth (who was so badly treated by the Labour Party at the behest of Zionist ideologues like Ruth Smeeth, revealed in the Wikileaks cables as a “strictly protect” US informant), Jackie Walker, Chris Williamson, Tony Greenstein, and many others.

In the end, Corbyn had no one left willing to defend him when they came for him as well. It is worthy of note that he did have “comrades” in the Socialist Campaign Group (within the Parliamentary Labour Party), but they, including specifically his closest ally, John McDonnell, displayed a notable cowardice and timidity in defending their former leader.

In my case, the strategy adopted was different. A maximalist and genocidal Zionism was met with a maximalist anti-Zionism. No concessions to Zionist talking points, no apologies, no fear. The fundamentally racist Zionist movement can only be faced and defeated. If we adopt this approach we will not always win, but if we don’t we will always lose.

One consequence of the muddled thinking on the left and in the Palestine “solidarity” movement is that the Second Nakba being unleashed on the Palestinian people today is, among many things, a direct consequence of the failure of the international ‘solidarity’ movement. We are all complicit. For too long, a latent, vague, and naive ‘pro-Palestinian’ sentiment among publics around the world has competed with a sophisticated and committed genocidal Zionism

A major strategic shift is required if overwhelming international sympathy with the Palestinians is to be mobilised into a material and effective anti-Zionism.

There is a difference between being pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist. The material importance of this distinction is the difference between calling for a “ceasefire”, an end to “suffering”  and “peace”, in the abstract, without a clear-eyed strategy to sever the global lifelines of the Zionist colony. Yes, this includes those lifelines provided by the imperialist countries, especially Britain, the US, and Germany, and by the collaborating Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The arms supplies, British spy flights, the training of Israeli officers by the British, the targeting assistance from US intelligence and – according to early and more recent reports – the boots on the ground of US and British military and intelligence operatives. And of course, the political cover given by Biden and Sunak and the rest remains a major target, as does the defensive battle against the criminalisation of protest and the need to demolish the attempt to cast support for the liberation of Palestine as a call for genocide of the Jews.

But material anti-Zionism also directly attacks funding by Zionist networks, shuts down Zionist institutions, and threatens Zionist hegemony in the sphere of information warfare.

Let’s consider three examples of material anti-Zionism, all of which are needed if we are to dismantle Zionism. De-Zionisation needs to focus not just on the territory of Palestine, but the presence of the Zionist movement in the UK (and everywhere else it rears its ugly head, radicalises Jewish kids, recruits forces for genocide and represses Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and many others domestically via counter terrorism and extremism policies adopted by Western governments.)

Related News

The pincer movement against the BBC

How official UK statistics on hate crime against Jews were inflated by Zionist, government pressure

There are many things that we can concretely do now. The rule must be, "Which are the institutions, firms, charities and groups that are providing the most significant aid to the genocide? which are most complicit?" set in the context of which can be most easily targeted. A first salient question is how to work this out. Let’s look at the answer to this question, which is movement research and journalism, and then go on to look at two other key areas of activity:

1. Information warfare

The weapons in this war are pro-Palestine independent media outlets like the GrayZone, which has (along with others like the Electronic Intifada) been at the forefront of resisting Israeli lies and digging out the truth. Of course, there are many other instances including, MintPress, Palestine Chronicle and not forgetting the weekly show that I produce on PressTV, Palestine Declassified. It’s a sign of effectiveness when the Zionists devote significant resources to countering our activities, such as when the Center for Countering Digital Hate and the Anti-Defamation League published a report attempting to criticise Palestine Declassified. The same has of course happened to every pro-Palestine outlet. The information war is also necessary to feed into other elements of material anti-Zionist action by providing reporting and analysis that reveals the main contours of the Zionist movement, helps to identify points of weakness, builds common sense and confidence about taking action and that - globally, as well as in Palestine and the region, we are winning.

2. Direct Action

Palestine Action is at the cutting edge of the resistance to the Zionist war machine in the UK. In the last few years, it has launched scores of actions to occupy, cripple and decommission arms firm factories and offices as well as targeting companies involved in servicing the arms industry and helping to commit genocide in Palestine. Among its major successes it has as a member has written:

Since its formation in 2020, Palestine Action has forced the permanent closure of Elbit’s Oldham factory and pushed the company to abandon its London headquarters. In 2022, the group’s protest action led to the dissolution of contracts worth 280 million pounds ($353.6m) between the UK Ministry of Defence and Elbit Systems. Our campaign has also successfully impelled several leading British and European companies to cut ties with Elbit permanently.

In recent weeks, Palestine Action has taken action to smash up and disable arms firms and their suppliers virtually every day, and sometimes on several occasions on any particular day.

Direct targeting of British charities and companies complicit in the genocide

Yes, Zara produced an arguably off colour ad campaign, and yes it has a senior designer who is a supporter of genocide. But surely the involvement of key Zionist families (eg Wolfson and Lewis) that run well known high street chains (such as Next plc or River Island) in supplying financial and ideological support for charities (like Beit Halochem (run by a member of the Wolfson family)) or the UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel’s Soldiers) which exists to support the occupation forces are more important targets?

In these cases, the Wolfson family (through charity ventures like the Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, Benesco), and the Lewis Family (through The Bernard Lewis Charitable Trust, The David and Ruth Lewis Charitable Trust) are deeply implicated in supporting the occupation forces as well as other elements of the Zionist colony. There is a branch of Next or River Island in almost every British city.  They could and should see boycotts, protests outside, and campaigns to isolate them from suppliers until they dissociate themselves from the genocide. Of course, all the charities sending funds to the occupation forces are important targets. And there are many of these, certainly in the hundreds.

3. Returning occupation forces recruits

There also needs to be a focus on individuals returning from committing genocide as members of the occupation forces. According to a 2016 report by "Israel’s" Security Ministry, French recruits make up some 45% of the foreign contingent making up the occupation forces. Americans contribute 29% and British recruits are around 5%. Since the Israeli attack on Gaza started on 7 October, at least 10,000 people living in the US have received draft notices from the Israeli military to report for duty. If the proportions above were replicated, this would indicate that more than 15,000 French citizens and around 1,700 British citizens have been involved since the launch of Al-Aqsa Flood. All of these people need to be profiled, detained, de-Zionised, de-radicalised and re-educated. Otherwise, they will remain a threat to the domestic citizenry in addition to the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. The UK and other governments should follow the example of the South African Foreign Minister Maledi Pandor in saying that “she was putting South Africans who fight in the IDF on notice. ‘We are ready. When you come home, we are going to arrest you.’”

Mass demonstrations do remain useful. Lindsey German, a leading figure in the UK Stop the War Coalition since it was founded after 9/11, is right to object to those who are disdainful of marching “from A to B”. Demonstrations are an important display of the volume and strength of public sentiment: They reclaim the hegemony of public space from Zionists, strengthen the resolve of actors who have the ability to make a material (ie kinetic) difference to the course of the war, and shows Palestinians their cause is both popular and universal, at the forefront of people’s minds irrespective of race, religion, and nationality.

In the first two months of the current genocide, even Arab states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia were forced to react to the sight of millions of Europeans and Americans demonstrating in support of the Palestinian Resistance by publicly pretending to assist in achieving a ceasefire. That is because these Arab states, who rule in the interests of their own families (aided by the US empire), are more responsive to and respectful of white Europeans than they are their own people.

But demonstrations have for too long, for decades, helped to limit material anti-Zionist action. They are organized and monopolized by those who appear reluctant or perhaps are incapable of offering serious political education. They include liberals (even leftists) who are terrified of the Z-word, even if they have appeared to defend its use in print. They have built a movement with great breadth but no depth.

Why is that? In part 2 of this article, I will look back and the reasons by what British left is weak on the questions of anti-Palestinian racism and Zionism.