2 March 2024

Open Letter to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley from Anti-Racist Jews

The Suggestion That Opposing Genocide is Anti-Semitic or ‘Threatening’ to Jews and MPs is not only Anti-Semitic But It Paves the Way to a Police State

At 19.55 on February 16, on the eve of the last Palestine Demonstration, the Metropolitan Police issued a tweet changing the time of the demonstration, putting it back by 1½ hours.

The timing was deliberately planned in order to cause maximum disruption to those with pre-booked coaches and transport.

The pretext for this was in order to “accommodate an event at a synagogue along the route.” thus lending credence to allegations that marches against Israel’s genocide were anti-Jewish. The tweet reinforced this with the suggestion that “the impact on nearby congregations will be reduced.”

There was no hint as to what this ‘impact’ might have been but it doesn’t take much imagination to understand that what the Police were doing was to reinforce the message from supporters of Israel’s genocide that the demonstration was anti-Semitic.

Below is a statement from 152 Jews calling this intervention by the Police as an act of malice designed to reinforce the message of Zionist groups and their lapdogs, Sunak and Starmer, that demonstrations against genocide are ‘hate marches.

We have entered the land of Orwell’s double-speak where language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words’ is employed by our rulers, the political class and their media echo chambers to try and destroy what remains of our democratic right to protest.

Opposition to mass murder, ethnic cleansing and sexual violence is bizarrely called ‘hate’ and support for the starvation of children and the deliberate murder of those queuing for food is a sign of the love that these people feel!

George Orwell wrote about this phenomenon of how the ruling class uses language in an essay Politics and the English Language which is prescient. Orwell wrote:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties.

Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.

Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements.

Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

Orwell was writing at the time of the British Empire. He was describing its ‘civilising methods’. Today we don’t need to conjure up mental pictures of Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. They are on the Internet and our TV screens. That is what makes the Tory/Labour attacks on those who support the Palestinians and oppose Israel’s massacre of civilians all the more despicables.

Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy and all the other war criminals who govern us cannot say they didn’t know. It is impossible for them not to know. They can therefore reasonably be described as blood drenched monsters. Cool, calculated political sadists for whom children starving and being murdered is less important than defeating a resistance movement, Hamas.

As we saw last night with the magnificent victory of George Galloway in Rochdale, despite the opposition of sectarian groups like the Socialist Workers Party, there is no constituency in Britain, besides MPs and Peers, TV and tabloid journalists, who can be mobilised in support of genocide.

Support for an immediate ceasefire commands the support of 71% of British people compared to 12% who wanted the blood letting to go on. This is despite the unanimity of the press and broadcasting media, the FT excepted, in favour of letting Israel’s genocidal rampage continue.

Even in the wake of October 7 and the mass propaganda about Hamas ‘atrocities’ most of which have now been debunked, an opinion poll on 19th October showed that 76% of British people supported an immediate ceasefire compared to 8% who didn’t.

It is the rich and powerful, those who have access to the airwaves who are the people who shout loudest for a continuation of the genocide and ethnic cleansing. As Galloway proved last night, Sunak, Braverman and Starmer’s support for a continuation of the bloodletting commands next to no support.

Only the Daily Mail could call for restrictions on the right to protest in the name of democracy - Vladimir Putin should pay attention to how the British Establishment justifies repression

So we have the pathetic Sunak slinking out of Downing Street to make an evidence free accusation that it was ‘intimidation’ that had led to the defeat of all the bourgeois parties.

Sunak complained that Galloway supported Hamas and Hezbollah. Neither of these organisations have murdered 30,000 innocent people and injured another 70,000. Neither of these organisations have deliberately starved children to death and left babies to die in incubators. It is an indictment of the murderous twisted values of Sunak and his puppet Starmer that they believe that Hamas is the incarnation of evil whilst Israel is the symbol of all that is sweet and saintly in this world.

These are the values of capitalism and imperialism. No amount of blood shed is enough for these human vampires. Yet if their racist Rottweiler in the Middle East suffers an attack from those it has occupied for 57 years then this is the incarnation of evil.

It is this perversion of human values that leads these creatures to call demonstrations against genocide ‘hate marches.’ And it now appears that the Police, who are an instrument of class rule, there to protect property not people, who are using the pretext of ‘anti-Semitism’ to hem in the marches and provoke confrontations.

A number of people, myself included, have been arrested on the preposterous allegation that supporting the Palestinian right to resist is somehow support for ‘terrorism’. The proscribing of Hamas’s political wing in November 2021 by Sajid David was a nakedly political act. It had not an iota of justification.

If you go to the government website and see how the government justified its proscription of Hamas’s political wing (its military wing was proscribed in 2001) there is nothing saying why it was felt necessary to proscribe the political wing.

Throughout the Troubles in Northern Ireland from 1968 to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, whilst the IRA was proscribed Sinn Fein remained legal despite calls from the Tory right to proscribe it. If Sinn Fein had been proscribed then support for the IRA would never have been channelled in a political direction and the peace agreement would never have been signed. That is what that shallow political lightweight Sajid David was doing when, with a stroke of the pen, he proscribed Hamas political wing.

The government said that at the time when Hamas’s military wing was proscribed in March 2001

it was HM government’s assessment that there was a sufficient distinction between the so called political and military wings of Hamas, such that they should be treated as different organisations, and that only the military wing was concerned in terrorism. The government now assess that the approach of distinguishing between the various parts of Hamas is artificial. Hamas is a complex but single terrorist organisation.

Yet there is nothing to say why the government made this assessment. Absolutely nothing to justify proscribing the political wing. All it says is that:

Hamas commits and participates in terrorism. Hamas has used indiscriminate rocket or mortar attacks, and raids against Israeli targets. During the May 2021 conflict, over 4,000 rockets were fired indiscriminately into Israel. Civilians, including 2 Israeli children, were killed as a result. Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas, frequently use incendiary balloons to launch attacks from Gaza into southern Israel. There was a spate of incendiary balloon attacks from Gaza during June and July 2021, causing fires in communities in southern Israel that resulted in serious damage to property.

Even assuming that the above attacks were ‘terrorist’ as opposed to resistance activities, why were they attributed to Hamas’s 20,000 strong political wing? Hamas was the elected leadership of Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza under the last free elections in 2005.

If Hamas is to be classified as ‘terrorist’ because it killed 2 Israeli children then what should we call Israel which has murdered 15,000+ children in Gaza? The racist hypocrisy of this provision is nauseating.

Any normal person would classify Hamas as a resistance group. That does not mean you have to support it. It is an Islamic group. I’m an atheist. They are conservative socially and politically whereas I’m a socialist. But terrorist? This is the label that was applied to all colonial resistance to British imperialism.

‘Terrorist’ was also the label that the Nazis applied to the French and Polish Resistance. The Tory government and their Labour echo chambers are no different in their approach to Hamas than the Nazis occupiers in Europe were to the Maquis.

There had, before the Police’s decision to impose restrictions on the last Palestine march, been at least 9 previous such demonstrations without any discernible impact other than on the hysterical Braverman, the late and unlamented Home Secretary, who literally lost the plot when she accused the Police of a pro-Palestinian bias. No-one who is Jewish has been attacked or molested in any way prior to or subsequent to the marches.

Braverman wasn’t the only person who lost the plot. The misnamed Campaign Against Antisemitism, which was set up at the behest of Israel’s dirty tricks Minister of Strategic Affairs last time there was Israeli a major attack on Gaza, in the summer of 2014, called for the military to be called in!

The CAA even had the galls to say they were doing it in order to  “uphold the values that our country stands for”.  That is the contempt that Zionists have for democratic rights. But the CAA probably thought that they were still in Israel.

Since Braverman’s resignation the Police have been slowly caving in to the raucous and racist Tory and Zionist lobby with Police officers seeing their role as monitoring the slogans and speech of demonstrators. As if the average thick plod is capable of understanding political nuance.

The most ludicrous arrests were of four members of an obscure Stalinist group who had been selling a book on Nazi-Zionist collaboration with the Star of David intertwined with the Swastika. What business is it of the Police to decide that an artistic front cover of a book infringes the law?  Since when were the police the arbiters of what is acceptable?  This takes us back to the early 60s when the publishers of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Penguin Books, were prosecuted for gross indecency.

I just hope that those arrested follow through with their threats to sue the Met for false arrest and malicious imprisonment.

In recent years the Met have increasingly taken upon themselves the roles of deciding what is and is not acceptable politically. We all remember the pre-emptive arrests of protesters at the Coronation of Charles III.

The mere fact that the Police took it upon themselves to decide that supporting Republicanism was an arrestable offence points to a deeper malaise in the police. Their ingrained right-wing bias.

As the Undercover Policing Inquiry into police malpractices, including rape by deception, revealed the Met’s Special Demonstration Squad, which infiltrated political groups concentrated solely on left-wing groups despite the fact that it is the far-right that has indulged in terrorism, bomb making and in the case of Darren Copeland the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho, which killed 3 people a quarter of a century ago.

The pathetic excuse given for their political prejudice was that the police were too frightened to infiltrate fascist groups. Which, if true, just goes to show how nice we are and how we are the opposite of Braverman’s rhetoric!

Of course the Police response to accusations of bias is that they are only ensuring observance of the law without fear or favour.

If that is the case then it is strange that another law seems to have gone by default.  I refer to the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which makes it an offence to commit war crimes, be it in this country or abroad. It also makes someone who is ancillary to, i.e. helps someone commit a war crime equally guilty of the offence, wherever it is committed.

Given that Sunak, with the support of his faithful lapdog Starmer, has been supplying the Israelis with weapons with which to commit war crimes isn’t it about time that Sunak and Starmer shared a cell together?

With a bit of luck this would do wonders for penal reform as they might get to experience that which they wish to inflict on others. It would, I am sure, be an extremely popular measure since everyone knows that politicians are the biggest crooks.

Speaking of which isn’t it about time that the Police started prosecuting Tory Ministers who set up the VIP channel for their friends and cronies who took advantage of the COVID crisis to trouser billions of pounds? It would make a change from prosecuting shop lifters for petty theft.

As the letter below shows, the Police are fully aware that hundreds of Jews have taken part in the marches, many of them as part of a Jewish bloc.

I know that the habits of colonial divide and rule tactics die hard because at an earlier march the Police suddenly interposed themselves between the Jewish bloc and the rest of the march, because they believed that Jews were in danger from non-Jewish demonstrators.

This is not mere stupidity but a consequence of the false propaganda that the right churns out. The idea that there is anything anti-Semitic about pro-Palestinian marches is levelled by supporters of Israeli genocide in the absence of anything with which to defend what I called Hitler’s bastard offspring.

Because the Met operate within a racist and right-wing milieu, they have convinced themselves that the marches are inherently anti-Semitic. They seriously believed that demonstrators would attacks Jews who support the Palestinians, whereas in fact Jews opposed to genocide have been welcomed on the marches. This is part of the racist mindset of a police force that is notorious for the racists, bigots and Islamaphobes who make up its ranks.

Tony Greenstein 


  1. 1) the majority of Israeli population isn't European it's Middle Eastern. This points to this not being a European problem but a world problem. The middle east has made its own contributions to the situation.

    2) 1 million Jews in middle east pre 1948 down to just 30k today. This mass migration doesn't just happen for no reason. It's due to mistreatment of Jews by Muslims. Like in 1922 when Yemen made it illegal for Jews to adopt children. Muslim policies like this pushed Jews out again pointing to a muslim contributions.

    3) Zionism is not the problem. You can be pro Zionism and pro Palestinian rights and want a 2 state solution. Yesh Atid is the opposition party to netenyahu and they are a Zionist party that supports 2 states. Zionism is simply the idea that to avoid persecution Jews needed their own self governing state. It isn't the problem, radicalism is.

    1. Oh dear. The stupidity of Zionists knows no bounds.

      Yes there were a million (probably not that many but who cares) in pre1948 and now apparently down to 30K (probably more as there's 25K in Iran alone).

      So why might that be? Mistreatment of Jews? Why did the rich prosperous Jews of Iraq flee in 1950/1? Perhaps it was due to the activities of the Zionist Underground who wanting the Jews to emigrate and finding they didn't want to went round planting bombs in Jewish cafes, synagogues etc.

      Don't take my word for it. It is widely documented in Israel itself - the paper Haolem Hazeh and the Black Panther. See the recent book Three Worlds by Iraqi Jew, Professor Avi Shlaim of Oxford University. It was widely believed by Iraqi Jews that in order to create a Jewish working class in Israel, since the European Ashkanzis didn't want to be workers, the Zionist leaders set out to destabilise t he Iraqi, Egyptian, Morroccan and Yemenite Jewish communities.

      Because Zionism was nothing if not cruel to its own. We saw that during the Holocaust when they preferred them to die in the Holocaust than migrate to countries other than Palestine.

      The Arab countries were the place historically where Jews fled to escape persecution such as the Inquisition. There may have been some discrimination. Perhaps Yemen did pass such a law. Was it implemented?

      What is certain is that the Holocaust happened in Christian Europe not Muslim Arabia

    2. The Zionist movement was conceived as a means of rescuing European Jews from persecution, but its implementation in 1948 has ended up endangering the lives of Middle Eastern Jews, as repeated Arab-Israeli wars fuelled the fires of antisemitism in the Muslim world.

    3. @George - not really. Israel's power lies in the fact that it plays a crucial role for US imperialism and indeed the entirety of the western block. Without Israel and the Arab compradors who are also tools of the US, then the US and British ability to exert influence over the region would be severely damaged. Netanyahu knows this very well. He knows how important Israel is to US imperialism, and thus, he has always conducted himself with a degree of arrogance. He knows that presidents come and go, but the interests of US imperialism are constant, and he acts accordingly. Why are all of the US and its allied block of nations going all in to protect Israel now? The answer is that if Israel collapses, which it will in the end, then the interests of all of them are fatally damaged. The long derailed project towards Arab unity may well be reborn if Israel goes down and the comprador regimes follow it. This can lead to people mistaking Israel as being the tail that wags the US dog. This is a mistake. The genocide that is going on right now is one that is directly in defence of the interests of US imperialism and their allies. Biden could stop it inside an hour if he wanted to, but if they stopped, it would lead to an internal implosion within the zionist state, and that would be fatal for US imperialism. Biden has to pretend that he's in favour of a ceasefire for electoral purposes now, but the survival of the Israeli colonial regime is what matters to the US ruling class far more than any individual politician This is about Israe's purpose, and it retains the same purpose that the British assigned to it when they backed the zionist movement with the Balfour Declaration. Israel's purpose remains to stop the development of a unified Arab state that can effectively develop the region and move it firmly out of the period of colonial and neo-colonial domination. That was and remains Israel's purpose and so the US has to back it or lose everything it has in the region.

    4. I agree with this completely

  2. 'they (the police) believed that Jews were in danger from non-Jewish demonstrators.' I suggest that the only people who could be a danger to Jewish supporters of Palestine would be Zionists who are in favour of continuing the genocide.

  3. Absolutely brilliant account and analysis Tony. The letter to the Met is concise and crystal clear. Thank you again for your excellent post.
    Vassa Nicolaou

  4. Tom Suarez's two recent books, well detailed and referenced from official record, also cover the wide extent of zionist terrors and propaganda directed at jewish folk living in the north African countries, to drive them to Palestine.

  5. When you say "obscure Stalinist group" are you referring to the CPGB-ML ?
    If so, I thought that up until recently, they were involved with Galloways Workers Party of Britain, to the point that Joti Brar was actually in the WPGB, and her brother often featured on GG's RT show.
    What about them is obscure, and is a proper ML group not more preferable than various institutional left voices, like Owen Jones, NM and Paul Mason, who want everyone to vote Labour, or endless left factions, some of which, like the AWL, are cool with zionism and imperialism ?

    1. I strongly disagree with the belief that Western support for Israel (at least in recent decades) is driven by "capitalism and imperialism".

      The main Western interest in the Middle East is in the oilfields of the Gulf, which are on the opposite side of the Arabian peninsula to Israel. And Israel is so universally hated in the rest of the Middle East that it is worthless as an ally: in fact in the 1991 Gulf War it was a liability for the West, as Saddam deliberately baited Israel with Scud missile attacks, knowing that if Israel retaliated it would break up the coalition against him.

      Western support for Israel seems to me to be driven almost exclusively by a belief that it is the moral thing to do (because of the rabid Jew-hatred in the rest of the Middle East, even though a lot of that Jew-hatred was a consequence of Israeli crimes), rather than by any hard economic interest.

    2. "I strongly disagree with the belief that Western support for Israel (at least in recent decades) is driven by "capitalism and imperialism".
      Your free to disagree, but that doesn't make you right. Capitalism being the mode of production underpins everything, so while there might of been some moralistic and/or religious reasons Western leaders backed Israel, that doesn't get away from the fact that they also had strategic interest in the Levant, didn't want mass Jewish immigration to countries like Britain due to fear of the spread of things like socialism, as well as wanting to get Jewish support for the allies in ww1.

      "The main Western interest in the Middle East is in the oilfields of the Gulf, which are on the opposite side of the Arabian peninsula to Israel"
      As well as natural resources in the Golan Heights, and more recently off the coast of Gaza.
      Furthermore, countries like Palestine, and lets include Egypt, sit at the crossroads of Africa and Asia, and with the Suez Canal running through the two places, whichever European nation dominates them, also controls access to India - this is one of the primary reasons Britain and France fought over Egypt.

      "And Israel is so universally hated in the rest of the Middle East that it is worthless as an ally: in fact in the 1991 Gulf War it was a liability for the West, as Saddam deliberately baited Israel with Scud missile attacks, knowing that if Israel retaliated it would break up the coalition against him"
      Ok, but none of that means Western support for it isn't based on imperial or capitalist interests.

      "Western support for Israel seems to me to be driven almost exclusively by a belief that it is the moral thing to do (because of the rabid Jew-hatred in the rest of the Middle East, even though a lot of that Jew-hatred was a consequence of Israeli crimes), rather than by any hard economic interest."
      There might be some moral element to support for it, but its in no way exclusive, and part of this moral aspect is Western guilt. Being anti or critical of the Israeli state isn't "rabid Jew hatred" and by ignoring the material basis of things, your engaging in a kind idealism.

  6. You are wrong on both counts George. Israel was not conceived as a means of rescuing European Jews from anti-Semitism. It was after all too late but in any case the Zionist leadership made it clear that the purpose of Israel was to preserve and perpetuate the Jewish nation/race NOT rescue of Jews from danger.

    As Rabbi Hillel Silver declared:

    Are we again, in moments of desperation going to confuse Zionism with refugeeism which is likely to defeat Zionism?... Zionism is not a refugee movement. It is not a product of the Second World War, nor of the first. Were there no displaced Jews in Europe... Zionism would still be an imperative necessity.

    Ben Gurion wrote on 17 December 1938 that
    If the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand, and aid for the national museum in Palestine on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail and our people's entire strength will be directed at aid for the refugees in the various countries. Zionism will vanish from the agenda and indeed not only world public opinion in England and America but also from Jewish public opinion. We are risking Zionism's very existence if we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem.

    There are umpteen quotes to the same effect.

    Yes Israel is the other side of Arabia but so what? Israel is a bastion of support for reactionary Arab regimes not least those in Gulf and Saudia Arabia who have established close ties with each other


Please submit your comments below