The British-based Palestine Solidarity Campaign has taken it upon itself to try and ban me - and other anti-Zionists - from speaking at public meetings up and down the country. In aid of the absurd campaign of censorship, it has tried to pressure and threaten its local branches. 

I am aware of several attempts to do this.   

First was the Hastings and Rye group who - to their credit - did not buckle under the pressure to disinvite me and to avoid posting a copy of my speech  - or remove it later - on/from the local group website.

Next was Bristol, where the local group (and the local Stop the War group) unilaterally withdrew from the Bristol Palestine Alliance in a row, in part over whether I should be allowed to speak at a demo in Bristol.  Other elements of the dispute involved objecting to Palestine Action's Huda Ammori and Lowkey as speakers. 

No doubt there have been other incidents, but the most recent was Chelmsford, where the pressure was so bad that the group unilaterally decided to resign from PSC. The PSC in London attempted to enforce the no-platform position by circulating a briefing they had compiled on things I had said. This was then developed and circulated to all branches and was discussed at a national branch meeting, taking up most of the time allocated for the meeting by all accounts.   

The document was four pages long, and the purpose of this piece is to respond to the claims made in it. 

Before we get into details, one thing to bear in mind is that this type of response is due, in part, to the fact that the Left in the UK had been played by Zionists in the anti-racist movement for decades. Genocidal Zionists associated with the Revisionist Zionist movement were involved in the creation of the ‘anti-fascist’ movement in this country, as I have revealed in earlier reporting. This particular group then (in 1948) affiliated en bloc with Irgun, the group responsible for the King David Hotel bombing and which was involved in 1947 and 1948 in terror attacks against British interests in Palestine and indeed in the UK itself. Since then, the British anti-racist movement has faced the difficulty of accommodating Zionists in order to create a ‘united front’. This has been true since the 1970s in Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, and it has remained the case ever since in groups like Unite Against Fascism and today's Stand Up To Racism.  The problem with allowing Zionists to be involved in leadership positions is that it always comes with a price. That price includes avoiding or soft-pedalling the fact that Zionism is a form of racism and adopting a strategy of opposing ‘fascism’ when the main form of racism in British Society is state and institutional racism against Black people, the Irish, and latterly, especially, Muslims. Jews are not the victims of either state or institutional racism in the UK today. It is a truly extraordinary fact that the Anglo-Left continues to feel so burdened by appeasing the sensibilities of the genocidaires of the Zionist movement. 

The PSC makes four explicit points in its briefing, which I will deal with in turn. 

In August 2023, Miller wrote that Jews are “over-represented” with the “power to make economic, political and cultural decisions,” implying a collective Jewish control over “all areas of British public life.” This line of thinking invites the question, what should be the policy response to ‘solve’ such “over-representation”? 

The answer to the question posed here is that anti-racists want to abolish inequality - to dismantle racism. Surely, any anti-racist group wants to do the same unless they want Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians always to be second-class citizens. Do I imply a 'collective Jewish control’? No, I say that Zionist power and influence are obviously enhanced by the fact that Jews are, on average, relatively privileged in society. It’s notable that the briefing cites a few words from one or two tweets on this topic. Some months ago, I wrote a five-part series of articles debunking the various arguments made against my discussion of factual data about the social location of the Jews and how this might relate to the power of Zionism. 

Not a single line from any of those articles is cited in the PSC briefing. For the record, here is a summary of each article and a link to the original. 

1. Did I 'cross a line' in saying that, in general, Jews are not discriminated against? The following article is part one of a series of articles by David Miller entitled: Are the Jews discriminated against? In it, Miller tackles the issue of whether or not there is truth to the claim of institutional anti-semitism in Britain, drawing from his detailed analysis.
2. The data on the Jews and 'discrimination' in the UK. This article examines the evidence for Judeophobia in the UK, showing that on every single metric (except one, which we examine in part 3), Jews are not discriminated against.
3. A closer look at hate crimes against Jews in the UK. Though Muslims suffer the most religiously aggravated hate crimes as recorded in police statistics, it’s also the case that Jews are ‘overrepresented’ as victims in hate crime data.  But when examined properly this effect disappears.
4. Zionist attempts to distort 'antisemitism' and inflate 'hate crime' statistics. In this article, I show that the collection of “hate crime” statistics in relation to the Jews has been fundamentally distorted by Zionist pressure and infiltration.
5. How official UK statistics on hate crime against Jews were inflated by Zionist, government pressure. This article looks at the pressure campaign mounted by the Zionists' closest friends in government to clamp down on pro-Palestine activism from October 2023 and how the anti-Semitism card was deployed as never before.

I am more than happy for people to read and critique these articles to show how I am wrong, either in terms of data or in terms of conceptualization. One cannot short-circuit those discussions by positing that I just hate Jews.  

The PSC briefing goes on to make the following claim:

In this October 2024 tweet, Miller claims:

• “Europe is already occupied by both [Jewish supremacism] and the financial networks that underpin it."

• That there are “entryist, subversion and surveillance networks that allow for complete Jewish supremacist dominance over our politics."

The claim that Europe is “occupied” by Jewish supremacist financial networks – implying total command of Europe by these networks – echoes classic antisemitic ideas of covert and conspiratorial Jewish control.

Note the elision here from “Jewish Supremacism” (in the quotations from myself) to “Jewish” in their own description of my meaning. This is a Zionist move.  Discussions of Zionism or even of “Jewish supremacism” are not discussions of “the Jews”, just as discussions of Aryan supremacy or German Nazis are not discussions of ‘the Germans’.

The next point in the briefing is as follows:

In a post this month, Miller sets a very different standard for Jews to be considered anti-Zionist than for non-Jews. Stating that “it is doubtful whether there are more than a handful of Jewish anti-Zionists anywhere” does not just deny the significant role of Jewish anti-Zionist activists who have existed long before the "State of Israel," it implies it is something inherent in the Jewishness of individuals that prevents more than a handful of them being anti-Zionist.

The reason we need to use the term Jewish Supremacist is in part because of this distinction within the Jewish supremacist camp between Zionists and anti-Zionists. This may sound fantastical, but the reality is that the historical tendency of the so-called ultra orthodox Jews was not to recognize the earthly power that wanted to create a "Jewish state" - the Zionist movement.  This was, rather, God’s work. A Jewish "state" could and should only come about with the return of Moshiach, at which point it would be legitimate. But of course, a Jewish "ethno-state" is no more legitimate in having alleged heavenly assent. It’s long past time that we stopped looking back on the Religious anti-Zionists of Hasidic sects like Chabad-Lubavitch, Ger, Bobov, Belz, St Klausenberg - even Satmar, the largest “anti-Zionist” Hasidic dynasty - as potential allies of the liberation of Palestine. They never were and never will be. Take the example of the current Minister of Housing in the Zionist regime, Yitzhak Goldknopf. He is the leader of United Torah Judaism, the political party representing most ultra-orthodox Jews. He is a devotee of the Ger Hasidic sect and thus an ‘anti-Zionist’ who would prefer to die rather than serve in the occupation forces. While simultaneously calling for the end of ‘Apartheid’ and the occupation, Goldknopf, as Housing minister since 2022, has overseen the largest expansion of settlements in the West Bank in decades. As I said: Jewish supremacists.

Do I think that it is something ‘inherent’ in Jewishness that prevents Jews from joining the struggle for the liberation of Palestine?  Well, of course not.  We can illustrate this by reference to those Jews who have, in fact, joined the material struggle to destroy settler colonialism. Where, in the Jewish community today, are the equivalents of William Sportisse, a Communist who joined the Algerian struggle for liberation? And where are the equivalents of those better-known heroes of the South African liberation movement Ruth First, Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils? They were all Jews who joined the material struggle against Apartheid. Where is today's anti-Zionist equivalent of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress founded by Nelson Mandela?

The PSC briefing continues:

Jews can only be considered anti-Zionist if they engage in armed struggle…

Miller goes on to set a double standard that non-Jewish anti-Zionists are seemingly not required to meet, asking, “How many Jews have engaged in military action against Zionist targets?” If armed struggle is required for a Jew to be anti-Zionist, but not for someone of any other background, that again implies that they should be treated differently from others and greater demands made of them to prove their commitment to anti-Zionism. This is a deeply problematic approach that divides activists on the grounds of their background.

The standard - required of everyone, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, in my view - is material opposition to Zionism. Material opposition does not mean everyone or every Jew has to pick up a gun to fight Zionism, but it does mean the necessity of fostering resistance consciousness and crucially material action. In other words, I don’t think, and have not said, that Jews can only be considered anti-Zionist if they engage in armed struggle. It’s frankly amazing that those who want to tone police our movement can pick up on specific posts on X and pretend that they have not seen or deliberately avoid checking if this interpretation is supported by other things that the person has said. I have been talking for at least a year about the need to escalate to material anti-Zionism. I have also laid out what it means in a long article and many posts on X, TikTok, and Instagram. I have repeatedly said that the cutting (material) edge of the anti-Zionist movement is Palestine Action. But, of course, the PSC doesn’t want to hear. It has, of course, in any case, been seeking to sabotage the activities of Palestine Action for many months.

But it is still legitimate to ask about the role of Jews in the anti-zionist struggle, specifically for one very good reason.

Jews, in general, stand in a different material location in relation to non-Jews to the settler project in Palestine, whether in Palestine or outside it. Jews in occupied Palestine have a privileged vantage point on the regime, which allows them access to locations and situations denied to non-Jews. This could be used to subvert the Zionist entity by passing intelligence, engaging in sabotage, or even persuading die-hard Zionist families to leave, among a myriad of other activities. Am I ruling out pacifists from anti-Zionist action, as some have apparently questioned?  Well, of course not. Pacifists can very well engage in Non Violent Direct Action.  A thousand flowers of NVDA could, in principle bloom: in settlements, at military bases, or at the border attempting to force aid through.

In the so called ‘diaspora’, Jews - unless they have no contact at all with the Zionist movement or organised Jewry (which is almost totally Zionist in nature) - also have a material location allowing them to be of use to other supporters of the liberation of Palestine by supplying intelligence, facilitating sabotage of the Zionist movement, and wearing down the will of Zionists to resist the their inevitable defeat. Returning IOF soldiers would find it more difficult to ‘hide’ in the ‘Jewish community’ if even 2-3% of British Jews were watching and passing on intelligence on their whereabouts. Jews have this responsibility by virtue of their material location. There is, thus, a special responsibility to help smash Zionism

But as the genocide grinds on, we are all failing in our attempts to stop it. We all bear that responsibility, and we will all be judged for this in the future.

An archived version of the four-page PSC briefing can be found here.