What the Jewish Left Doesn’t Need is Advice that It has No Responsibility for What Zionism and Israel Has Done In Their Name

 A Reply to Shaul Magid’s Argument for Jewish Indifference to Genocide and an Evasion of Responsibility

Shaul Magid is a rabbi, Visiting Professor of Modern Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity School, and Distinguished Fellow in Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College. Magid is also an opponent of Jewish anti-Zionism which he argues is irrelevant. Jews opposed to Zionism should turn in on themselves and ignore what is happening in their name.

In his article What Does the Jewish Left Want?, which is reprinted by Jewish Voice for Liberation, Magid argues that the Jewish left should ‘no longer focus on opposition to a state that many in the Jewish Left no longer support.’ In my response below I explain that if it doesn’t focus primarily on Zionism and the Israeli state, then this Jewish left is not only not a genuine left but it has no real purpose.

Shaul Magid

At a time when US and Western Imperialism is using Jewish people as its human shield, its moral alibi for support of the genocide in Gaza, to pretend that solidarity with the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism should be deprioritised is to do exactly what the Zionists want us to do.

It is to argue that Jews should become the bystanders to the slaughter in Gaza. Raul Hilberg excoriated, in Perpetrators, Victims and Bystanders, the ‘dull awareness’ and passive indifference of those who looked on as the Jews were exterminated in the holocaust, be they individuals or the Allied countries.

Hilberg spoke of the ‘human wall’ that bystanders had erected, of indifference and social isolation. What Magid is arguing is that Jews on the left should adopt a similar approach today. It is profoundly immoral.

Magid argued, in opposition to Jewish Voice for Peace’s statement adopting an explicitly anti-Zionist position, that they had ignored

a series of real “Zionist” possibilities where “justice and equality” were paramount.

What Magid really wants is to have his cake and eat it. His article is an exercise in self-indulgence. The real question is whether Jewish intellectuals have the courage and honesty to call Zionism out for what it is. Clearly Magid doesn’t possess that courage. Magid says

Many Jews who define themselves as anti-Zionist do not think the state of Israel should cease to exist. Rather, they contest Zionist hegemony.

If that is the case then they are not anti-Zionists and that is Magid’s problem.

For Magid the internal battle within the Jewish community takes precedence over genocide and ethnic cleansing. Is it any wonder that Palestinians get tired of this Jewish preciousness at a time when Palestinian children are being starved to death in the name of Zionism’s Jewish redemption?

If you are an anti-Zionist then Israel as a Jewish state must disappear. Not the people but the state. Israel must become normalised, like any other state. It must be a state of its own citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Magid accepts that Jewish anti-Zionists reject the idea that ‘Zionism is a requirement for legitimate Jewish identity in the twenty-first century.’’ But then he indulges in a semantic frivolity when he makes:

 ‘an important distinction... between Zionism and Israel. Israel is a country; Zionism is an ideology.’

No.  Zionism is the ideology of the Israeli state. It dictates the imperatives of Zionism, such as ethnic cleansing, Jewish racial purity, Jewish settlement at the Palestinians’ expense. This is a distinction without a difference.

What Magid demonstrates is that he rejects the special characteristic of Zionism as a settler colonial ideology whose aim was to achieve as pure a Jewish state as possible. In the words of Israel’s opposition leader, Yair Lapid:

“My principle says maximum Jews on maximum land with maximum security and with minimum Palestinians”

Quite amazingly Magid goes on to say, without so much as a flicker of awareness, that:

Like most countries Israel will choose how to govern according to will of its citizens, in Israel’s case, mostly, but not exclusively, its Jewish citizens (as those living under occupation have no political agency in the national polity), how to treat its minorities, how to deal with questions of justice and domination.

The whole point of anti-Zionism is that Israel is not like most countries. It is sui generis. Actually most countries don’t govern according to the will of their citizens but their elites and the capitalist ruling class. But let this pass. Magid is not a socialist.

In Israel’s case it pays no heed whatsoever to its Palestinian citizens. In Netanyahu’s words, ‘Israel is a state of its Jewish citizens not all of them’. That is why, being a Jewish state, it continues to dispossess what it calls Arab Israelis from their homes, in particular the destruction of the unrecognised villages of the Bedouin of the Negev such as Umm al-Hiran and Ras Jraba. Has Magid never heard of the policy of Judaisation of the Galilee and Negev, the Koenig Memorandum and Prawer Plan?

Does Magid think that there’s nothing of special interest in the fact that those living under occupation have no civil or political rights despite it being made clear that the West Bank will always remain part of Israel? Has he lost the ability to spell or even recognise the word Apartheid?

Magid quotes Joel Swanson’s assertion that

Historically, Zionism has never been one single concept. It has been a family of arguments, ... To say ‘Zionism’ without adjectives is already to erase its internal diversity.’

Here we really come to the crux of the argument. Shaul Magid’s illusion that there is a nice as well as a nasty Zionism. It is part of a ‘family’ that somehow along the way as it lost its focus or direction.

So let us spell it out for Shaul Magid who is blind to Zionism’s  racist reality. Zionism is what Zionism does. Zionism does not exist in the minds of a fragrant Jewish American Princess who still believes in fairy tales but in the settler attacks on Palestinian villages in the West Bank or the Death to the Arabs riots in Jerusalem each year.

Is there any difference between Herzog and Netanyahu, between Labour and Revisionist Zionism or did they merely argue about the means of achieving and maintaining a Jewish Supremacist state beholden to the West as an armed watchdog?

Magid clings to a Zionism that never existed. In fact cultural and socialist Zionism long ago disappeared in their own contradictions. Socialism is universal. Zionism is particularist. I realised that when I was 16 but Magid has yet to achieve political adolescence.

Magid points to a recent poll in which only a third of American Jews identify as Zionist whereas 88% support the concept of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Clearly there is confusion among American Jews as Israel has proven beyond doubt that it cannot be both Jewish and democratic. Always it is forced to take the former path and jettison the latter, as the Jewish Nation State Law has proved.

The reality is that this was always a dishonest slogan of the hypocritical Zionist ‘left’. When confronted with a choice Zionism always preferred the Jewish to the democratic. In the words of Ahmed Tibi, an Arab member of the Knesset, Israel is Democratic for Jews and Jewish for Arabs.

It is this which has allowed Jewish neo-Nazis to become the third largest bloc in the Knesset and for Itamar Ben Gvir to become Police Minister in Israel. It is this which has led to Israeli Police acting like SS storm troopers against Israel’s Palestinian citizens. Israel is a state where torture is the norm (for Palestinians).

Yes there is massive confusion among American Jews but rather than offering clarity Magid seeks to take advantage of that confusion with his ridiculous essay.

Magid says that ‘Zionism served as an escape mechanism for Jews trying to escape a Europe collapsing around them.’ No that is absolutely not true. Haganah sent Feivel Polkes to Nazi Germany to persuade the Gestapo not to allow Jewish emigration to any place but Palestine. In exchange he offered to collaborate with them.

As a result Professor Franz Six, a senior SS official and head of Department II in the SD Main Office, who was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for war crimes in April 1948 wrote:

Pressure is being exerted on the Reich Deputation of the Jews in Germany in order to compel Jews emigrating from Germany to head only to Palestine and not to any other country.” [The Secret Contacts, Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 5 3/4 Spring/Summer 1976]

Ha’avara, the trade agreement between Nazi Germany and the Zionist movement, agreed in August 1933, not only broke the world-wide Jewish Boycott of Nazi Germany but it worsened the position for Jews trying to escape to other countries.

The Zionist movement consistently opposed rescue to any country bar Palestine. Magid fails to understand what has been called ‘cruel Zionism.’  See my book Zionism During the Holocaust (to purchase it contact me at tonygreenstein104@gmail.com).

Magid cites Yehiam Weitz’s article, “The Positions of David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Tabenkin Vis-A-Viz the Holocaust of European Jewry” but has failed to understand it. Weitz cites Ben-Gurion on the Jewish refugee problem thus:

‘Both during the 1930s ... and during the second half of the 1940s, after the war's end - his position on this question was determined and indisputable; Ben-Gurion definitively and often crudely opposed ameliorating the position of Jewish groups by means other than their transfer to Palestine. He felt that any 'solution of the national problem outside of Eretz Israel, or ... solving the individual's distress by ignoring the national problem ... [means] undermining the foundations of Zionism and acting  as a temptation  which  every  Zionist  must  learn to  withstand completely.'

When it came to priorities Zionism and building the Jewish state came first. Weitz quotes Ben-Gurion’s notorious statement in the wake of Kristallnacht that if:

'it would be possible to save all the [Jewish] children in Germany by transferring them to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second possibility, because before us is not only the account of these children but the historical account of the Jewish people.’

In other words the interests of building the ‘Jewish’ state took precedence over saving Jewish children from Germany. Magid could also have mentioned Boas Evron’S, Jewish State or Israeli Nation and the fierce opposition to the Evian Conference, called by Eisenhower to solve the Jewish refugee question. Of course it did no such thing but the Zionist leadership were nonetheless frightened.

What Magid didn't mention was the identification with Israel of the far and even neo-Nazi right

Evron quotes the minutes of a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive of 26 June 1938. Ben-Gurion was unremittingly hostile as he declared that

No rationalizations can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.

A Russia member of the Zionist Executive Menachem Ussishkin was even more forthright

He hoped to hear in Evian that Eretz Israel remains the main venue for Jewish emigration. All other emigration countries do not interest him… The greatest danger is that attempts will be made to find other territories for Jewish emigration. [my emphasis]

These positions are quite clear in the essay he referred to yet Magid scrupulously refrains from mentioning the attitude of the Zionists to saving the Jewish refugees.

Magid asks Can the Jewish Left move beyond Zionism and anti-Zionism?’ and queries whether it can ‘no longer focus on opposition to a state that many in the Jewish Left no longer support?’

Thus missing out the whole point of why Jews on the left make opposition to Israel and Zionism a central focus of their work. Of course Magid knows the reason but refrains from spelling it out. Everything Israel does is in the name of the mythical ‘Jewish people’ and Jews. It is after all a self-proclaimed Jewish state.

It is therefore incumbent upon Jewish socialists and those who are genuinely on the Jewish left to say ‘Not in My Name’. The fact that Magid resiles from this suggests that his membership of the Jewish left is ephemeral.

Of course the Jewish left can do many other things but when being Jewish is one of the primary justifications given for imperialism’s support for Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing it is rank hypocrisy and cowardice not to make that a priority. If the Jewish left cannot focus on Zionism and its claim to represent Jews then it has no relevance.

Magid says that ‘One of the fundamental differences between liberal Zionism and Jewish anti-Zionism is the exceptionalism that underlies the case of Israel’. That is of course true.  Liberal Zionists can, in theory, hold progressive positions on domestic American affairs but for Palestine there is an exception (Progressive Except Palestine). But that is increasingly untenable.

What Magid seems to be doing is providing a new way for this exceptionalism to operate by suggesting that Jews on the left simply avoid the issue altogether.

Why would Jews seek to avoid the one area where they have a contribution to make? Does he find it too uncomfortable? The difference between Magid and a self-declared Zionist is that he doesn’t openly defend the Apartheid state whereas ‘liberal’ Zionism does. Instead he makes excuses for it.

Jewish identity post-war has been forged in the crucible of Zionism. Jewish identity has changed for many a substitute religion. Without an alternative explicitly anti-Zionist Jewish identity Jewish identity become at best a self-indulgence and at worst an identity with genocide and racism.

Magid quotes Adi Ophir in his support:  “to become non-Zionist one first must become anti-Zionist.” I wonder if Magid ever thought this through? How about saying that to become a non-racist one must first become an anti-racist. Perhaps our goal is to abstain from confronting racism? This is meaningless nonsense, verbal masturbation.

The fact is that for Jews non-Zionism is, at best, a half-way house to anti-Zionism. Of course being an anti-Zionist also means taking a position against US imperialism and its use of Jews as its moral alibi.

As a final flourish Magid says that

The land between the river and the sea remains the Jewish homeland and the Palestinian homeland. But the domination of one over the other will never yield the flourishing of either.

In this Magid could not be more wrong. He equates the oppressed with their oppressors. Palestine is the home of the Palestinians. It is not a Jewish homeland. My home is where I live, Britain. The United States is the home of millions of Jews. Israel is a settler colonial state that calls itself Jewish only in the racial and ethnic sense. Israel is a state of Jewish Supremacy where Jews, not Palestinians, exercise domination.

The eventual choice that Israeli Jews face is between becoming Jewish Palestinians or leaving. That was the choice that White South Africans faced and we should not make any exception for the Zionist settlers whose crimes far exceed those of White South Africans.

Tony Greenstein

Prince Andrew Windsor Arrested on Suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office - The Real Question is 'Why He Hasn’t Been Arrested for Rape & Trafficking'?

The Time Has Come to Get Rid of This Dysfunctional ‘Royal’ Family and Have an Elected Head of State

Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview - BBC News 

It is understandable that people will be delighted at the arrest of ‘Prince’ Andrew (I don’t think Charles should be allowed to get rid of his embarrassing relative just like that – he has to live with the discomfort).

In a way so am I of course. Anything that discomforts and embarrasses this obnoxious man, who was an arms salesman for Britain, is to be welcomed. [See Arms and the Royal Man, Scottish Left Review]

Questions however need to be asked.

Last November I wrote that Andrew Was The Tip Of A Royal Iceberg of paedophillia.  Charles had also covered for a series of child abusers –  Bishop Peter Ball who was later gaoled despite Charles having provided him with a house as well as Jimmy Saville and Lord Mountbatten The real question was why Andrew wasn’t prosecuted for rape & conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Bishop Peter Ball sentenced to jail for child abuse

This is not a case of no one being above the law. Andrew has been treated with kid gloves for the past decade by the Metropolitan Police. They have steadfastly avoided questioning him over sex with a minor who was being trafficked.

Andrew was not arrested for rape or for trafficking in women. He has been arrested for allegedly handing over confidential government documents. That is a very different thing. And whether he is guilty of this we have no idea.

Prince Andrew's BBC Newsnight interview is back in the spotlight - watch key moments

What is really outrageous was that as soon as he settled the lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre in 2022 he should have been arrested on suspicion of rape. He wasn't. It beggars belief that he handed over a reputed £12 million to someone lying about having sex with him.

But the Metropolitan Police showed no interest in pursuing it just as its shown no interested in more recent revelations about Andrew ordering, as if in a takeaway, girls from Epstein. 

This is the real scandal not the trifling matter of a few government documents.

In February 2022, after the settlement with Virginia Giuffre, I posted a blog asking whether or not rape had now been officially decriminalised. The Met chose to ignore this somewhat obvious observation.

In case Cressida Dick, the previous Commissioner of the Met before the present incumbent racist Zionist, Mark Rowley hadn’t got it, I posted a meme involving a queue at Buckingham Palace on news that Andrew was giving away money to people he had never met.

Andrew had only agreed to settle with Virginia Giuffre after his bid to prevent the case that Virginia Giuffre had launched failed. See Bid to dismiss sexual assault lawsuit. In other words he paid up to avoid a court case in front of a jury.

Andrew & Epstein in the Royal Enclosure, Ascot

In November 2019, after the interview with Emily Maitlis, I posted a blog saying that

It’s not a carefully controlled, softball interview with the BBC but an interview under arrest which is required.

I was interested in the Police statement that they had ‘arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk’. When I was arrested, for a ‘Hamas related terror offence’ i.e. saying I support the right of the Palestinians to resist the occupation, the Police issued a statement naming me and the street where I lived.  I guess it’s one law for the Royals and another for Commoners. [see Argus 31.1.25]

Andrew was detained for a very few hours today under questioning. Now I’ve also been arrested on many occasions and the first thing that happens is that you are put in a cell for a few hours before being questioned, finger printed, photographed and DNA taken.

I would be interested to know if Prince Andrew was also kept in the cells before being questioned. I suspect not.

And the other question is why Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to roam, almost at will, the various palaces and royal establishments as well as attend the Royal Enclosure at Ascot.

One thing is for certain. This circus of the Royal Family and the Crown should end. This dysfunctional family is an embarrassment. What we need is an accountable, elected head of state.  Not someone who owes his office to the misdeeds of his long forgotten ancestors.

We don’t have hereditary scientists or mathematicians and we certainly shouldn’t have hereditary office holders and heads of state.

Tony Greenstein

Palestine Action Victory Vindicates Direct Action & Breaking Genocidal & Immoral Laws

We Have to Remain Vigilant & Continue the Protests - the Court of Appeal under Reactionary ‘Justice’ Lady Carr May Reverse the Decision

Palestine Action co-founder: 'Today is just an incredible victory'

The decision of the High Court to declare that the proscription of Palestine Action as a ‘terrorist’ group is unlawful is a sweet victory. It is made even sweeter by the dishonesty and hypocrisy of this corrupt ‘Labour’ government which prefers paedophiles to anti-genocide activists. 

However we should not be complacent. The decision is extremely problematic. The arguments that the three judges – Dames Victoria Sharp & Karen Steyn & Jonathan Swift - the most reactionary, pro-Zionist and security minded of the High Court, based their decision on, are extremely feeble and in places obscure and contradictory. 

In paragraph 29 of the judgement they argue that Palestine Action is a violent group.

In paragraph 34 they repeat the lie, which the jury did not uphold, regarding the Bristol attack on Elbit, that 

during the attack two responding police officers and a security guard were assaulted and suffered injuries. One police officer had been assaulted with a sledgehammer and sustained a serious back injury

Contrary to the misinformation of the prostitute press, the police officer in question did not suffer a serious back injury. That these reactionary bewigged fools got this wrong suggests that this judgment may not last very long.  

In paras. 43 and 45 they cite with approval the unanimous view of the Proscription Review Group that ‘the discretionary considerations weigh in favour of proscription’ and that Palestine Action was a terrorist group. 

In para. 57 these judges rejected the proposition that 

Palestine Action victory

fairness required the Home Secretary to give Palestine Action notice that she was minded to exercise her power to proscribe, to provide such reasons as she could, and to permit Palestine Action to have the opportunity to make representations.

This despite the fact that the Israeli Embassy and Elbit had been consulted. In para 88 the court found that:

The submission for the claimant has emphasised that only three of Palestine Action’s many actions were assessed to amount to acts of terrorism. That is so, but we are satisfied the Home Secretary was entitled to attach significant weight to any act occurring in the United Kingdom that came within the section 1 definition of terrorism.

We should bear in mind that the ‘definition of terrorism’ in the Terrorism Act 2000 is so wide that you could drive a coach and horses through it. Virtually any group could be proscribed if the government was set on it. The definition has been repeatedly criticized, not least by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation David Anderson QC who spoke of ‘the extreme breadth of the definition of terrorism in UK law.’ 

Anderson went on to point out (3.2(e)) in his 2011 Report that

Actions may constitute terrorism even when they might otherwise constitute lawful hostilities under international humanitarian law (e.g. acts of violent rebellion against oppressive governments, even where targeting only military objectives and minimising civilian casualties). 

Anderson observed (3.5) that:

The most striking feature of the TA 2000 definition is the fact that terrorist action is ―equally criminal whether it is intended to take place in the UK or elsewhere‖. This far exceeds the limited extraterritorial effect required by the EU Framework Decision and by the 16 international conventions and protocols that were concluded between 1963 and 2005 to address specific activities linked to terrorism. The effect is to extend the label of terrorism to violent actions directed against any regime in the world, however unsavoury or opposed to UK interests that regime may be, and however praiseworthy the objective of the ‘terrorists’ may appear.

In 3.9 Anderson recommended ‘shrinking the definition of terrorism’

As presently drafted, the definition is so broad as to criminalise certain acts carried out overseas that constitute lawful hostilities under international humanitarian law. Examples include UN-sanctioned use of force and acts of violent rebellion against oppressive governments, even where such acts target only military objectives and minimise civilian casualties. The broad criminalisation could have implications also for extradition, given that by UNSCR 1373 (2001) para 3(g), claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.

The High Court found that:

It is undeniable that the consequences of proscription are as described in the documents, are designed to disrupt proscribed organisations, and in the present case would have that effect on Palestine Action. But so far as concerns the lawful application of the Home Secretary’s policy on the use of the discretion to proscribe, that is not a relevant consideration. That is so notwithstanding that on a proper construction of the policy the Home Secretary does have latitude to decide for herself which matters are appropriate “other factors”

Paragraph 90 is all but incomprehensible. 

The conclusion in para. 95 that

The consequence and conclusion of this point is that, notwithstanding the latitude that the policy provides, the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was not consistent with her policy. The closed material does not affect our conclusion on this ground.

Is inexplicable. The arguments used are torturous. 

Nowhere in their judgment do the 3 judges even mention the fact that Palestine Action is a direct action not a terrorist group because they unquestioningly adopt the definition of terrorism as applying to non-terrorist groups (in the common understanding of the term). 

As regards the right to freedom of speech and association under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights they find in para. 106 that offences under sections 12(1), 1A and 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 ‘comprise a very significant interference with the right to free speech.’ This is not in line with previous Court of Appeal decisions in for example Chaudry. 

In para. 109 the High Court argues that what needs to be justified is not Palestine Action’s destruction of property. 

Rather, what needs to be justified is the restriction on actions comprising peaceful protest, consistent with Convention rights, under the Palestine Action banner.

On the face of it the statement in para. 114 that

Freedom of political debate, which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society, also includes the free expression by prohibited organisations of their views, provided that these do not contain public incitement to commit terrorist offences, or condone the use of violence

seems contrary to existing judicial interpretations of case law. It will be interesting to see if this is upheld by the Court of Appeal. I suspect it won’t be upheld. 

Likewise the statement in para. 115 that 

this case is primarily concerned with the rights of individuals who have not acted unlawfully either before or since proscription, who would have wanted to express support for and associate with Palestine Action – whose stated aim is “to stop genocide and other atrocity crimes by causing disruption to corporate actors who aid, abet, facilitate and profit from those crimes” – and who wished to engage in peaceful protests under the banner of Palestine Action, but are stopped from doing so. It cannot sensibly be said that such persons are seeking to deflect the article 10 and 11 rights from their real purpose by employing them for ends contrary to Convention values. Nor could that be suggested in respect of others, such as journalists, academics and civil society organisations who are conscientiously seeking to abide by the law, and whose rights are impacted. The Home Secretary’s article 17 submission fails.

This too is novel. The whole point of proscription has previously been that all the activities of proscribed groups are forbidden.

Yet in para. 118 the High Court goes on to say of the demonstrations that followed the proscription that:

Immediately following the proscription decision there were large protests. More than 2,000 people at these protests were arrested, primarily on suspicion of committing the offence under section 13 of the 2000 Act. The vast majority of those arrested had chosen to hold signs which read, “I oppose Genocide, I support Palestine Action”. We attach little weight to this when it comes to assessing the extent of the interference with Convention rights in this case. All those holding such signs either did or ought to have realised that what they were doing was showing support for Palestine Action. It was or ought to have been obvious to all concerned that such “carefully worded” placards were carefully worded only to the extent of sending the message that the person holding the placard was expressing support for Palestine Action.

This appears to contradict the previous paragraphs of the judgement. And likewise in paras. 123 and 124 the court declares, in respect of journalists, academics and campaigning groups that the pressure to self censor and 

the interference with article 10 and 11 rights is very significant. Nevertheless, there is a general correlation between the proscription of Palestine Action and the interference insofar as the adverse impacts are generally limited to those who have or would support Palestine Action and do not have any widespread or general impact on expressions of support for the general Palestinian cause.

Yet in para. 125 the High Court finds that ‘the interference with Convention rights consequent on proscription is not prescribed by law.’ 

In para. 136, as part of its ‘balancing assessment’ the court finds that

We do not consider that the proscription of Palestine Action is likely to result in any general impact on expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or even opposition to Elbit. This provides some support for a conclusion that the proscription was proportionate.

This despite the police’s repeated interpretation of proscription as doing exactly this. 

In paras. 137 and 138 the court attacks Palestine Action as a violent, terrorist organization. 

In paras. 141 and 142 the court rejects the view of the UN Special Raporteur 

that a “consensus” existed in international law to the effect that the actions of Palestine Action assessed as amounting to terrorism within the definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act did not in fact amount to terrorism.

The two grounds on which the application succeeded were

Ground 6: that the decision to seek the Order proscribing Palestine Action was made by the Home Secretary in breach of her own policy on when she would exercise her discretion to seek an order proscribing an organisation; and

Ground 2: that the decision to seek proscription was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA) because it amounted to an unjustified interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) under article 10 of the Convention, to freedom of expression and under article 11 of the Convention, to freedom of association and peaceful assembly; and further, amounted to discrimination contrary to article 14 of the Convention.

In para. 149 the High Court holds that Ground 6 is the strongest yet it makes it clear that the Home Secretary can simply rewrite the policy and then decide to proscribe Palestine Action without considering the usefulness of the criminal sanctions that result. 

Nonetheless the deproscription of Palestine Action is welcome although the Court resiled from implementing it immediately. The question is why. If the proscription is unlawful why not quash it immediately? 

It is difficult to argue with Craig Murray’s ‘Postpone the Celebrations’ blog article. He argues that these three, right-wing judges have deliberately set up their judgement to fail. This is possible. The judgement overall, finding that Palestine Action is a violent, terrorist group, does not make one optimistic. 

The irony is that on the very day that Yvette Cooper proposed proscribing Palestine Action she was dressed in the colours of the Suffragettes. Never was there a more shameless hypocrite. If any group could be described as 'terrorists' it was the Suffragettes. But Cooper was happy to bask in their reflected glory. 

We should consider the circumstances surrounding this case. At the very last minute Judge Chamberlain, who was relatively liberal, was replaced by three right-wing, security minded judges. This was despite Chamberlain having stated that he would be in charge of the case. 

The Ministry of Justice intervened to get Chamberlain replaced and Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division obliged. However this was so ham fisted that they found themselves in a dilemma. They could not be seen to override both Chamberlain’s original referral and the decision of the Court of Appeal to extend the grounds of the judicial review application. 

In other words this judgement is a face-saving exercise and the three judges scrabbled to find reasons to oppose the proscription whilst producing an error ridden ruling. 

What matters though is what the Palestine solidarity movement does. We cannot afford to rely on the whims of reactionary ruling class judges who are playing word games. 

The proscription of Palestine Action is still operating. The Metropolitan Police have stated that they aren’t going to arrest people now but merely take their details down for possible future prosecutions but all that that will do is delay future prosecutions. 

It is essential that we act as if there had not been a victory at the High Court. The kernel of the court’s decision was that Palestine Action remains a violent, terrorist organization. Nothing has changed in that regard. I agree with Craig Murray that this is a problematic judgement from judges who have given the most tenuous reasons for not upholding the proscription. 

The mass defiance actions must continue and if anything, now that there is no longer fear of arrest, be increased. 

We should call on Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stop the War Coalition to abandon their normal timid approaches and openly support the mass defiance actions. The proscription regime must be broken as part of the campaign to repeal the Terrorism Act 2000, which has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with an attack on our right to organize and freedom of speech. 

Of course this victory would never have happened but for the direct action movement, led by Defend Our Juries, a liberal pacifist group. This judgement does nothing to make the idea that a direction action group is a terrorist group illegitimate and untenable. DOJ should be congratulated and in particular Tim Crosland, the former government lawyer who was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on ‘terrorism’ charges and faces 14 years imprisonment. 

The Metropolitan Police and its Zionist Commissioner Mark Rowley behaved like the Gestapo trampling on the most basic of rights, for example getting Zoom to take down a webinar on vague allegations of ‘terrorism’. 

We should have nothing but contempt for those who claim to be our friends but who did everything they could to undermine our solidarity. I refer in particular to Phil Bevin, an ex-member of Jeremy Corbyn’s staff, who went so far as to allege that Tim Crosland was a police/state agent. 

The Stalinist 'Right to Protest Ltd' sought the approval of the Police for their posters!

Also included in this is the so-called Right to Protest Ltd., a front for a tiny Maoist group, the CPGB-ML led by Joti Brar which explicitly called on people not to hold placards supporting Palestine Action. They even got the Police to approve the wording of their own placards. So much for their pretence at being revolutionary.

Phil Bevin’s insinuations that Tim Crosland was a state asset and infiltrator should be treated with contempt. If anyone is likely to be a state asset and acting as an intelligence cut-out it is Bevin himself.

My advice to Palestine Action and Defend Our Juries is – celebrate our victory but don’t let up on the protests until our victory is final.

Tony Greenstein

See The Palestine Action ruling vindicates the courageous – and shames the complicit