I Have Resigned From Palestine Solidarity Campaign Because It No Longer Opposes Zionism, the Founding Ideology and Movement that created the Israeli State

In Railroading a Constitution Through Its AGM in Less Than an Hour, PSC’s Ruling Clique Demonstrated Their Contempt for the Membership 

Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry, both right-wing Zionists are invited to speak on PSC platforms - who does that benefit?

The angry, scowling face of PSC Chair Kamal Hawwash, who was determined to brush aside all opposition

In my letter of resignation I outline the reasons why Palestine Solidarity Campaign is today an obstacle to Palestine solidarity work.

Instead of educating activists as to the nature of Zionism and the Zionist movement, PSC has abandoned all opposition to Zionism. PSC is depoliticising activists in the face of constant Zionist attacks. It also reduces the question of Palestine to a human rights issue.

Of course the oppression of the Palestinians involves grave human rights abuses but if Palestine is simply a human rights issue then it is only one of many such examples. Who can doubt that the treatment of the Rohinga in Myanamar at the hands of the Burmese army, which is engaged in actual genocide, is worse than that of the Palestinians?

Zionism has systematically exploited the Holocaust through its blanket attack on all opposition to its settler colonial project as ‘anti-Semitism’. Yet instead of pointing out that Zionism represents an acceptance of anti-Semitism’s belief that Jews are aliens in the countries where they live, PSC prefers to jettison anti-Zionism.

Just 200 people participated in the Zoom session and as the day wore on it was down to less than 150

What makes Palestine different is that Israel is the only apartheid state on the planet and the only active settler colonial state in existence. Defenders of White Supremacy in South Africa were fond of pointing to human rights abuses in neighbouring countries and contrasting those states with itself.

The response of anti-imperialists was that South Africa’s regime of racial supremacy was unique. The same is true of Israeli Apartheid. Just as the South African state supported the repressive Black states surrounding it, Israel also acts as a guarantor against revolution in its neighbours. That is what the Abraham Accords are about.

PSC avoids such ‘difficult’ questions as it panders to the lowest common denominator politically. A cursory look at PSC literature would have you believe that Israel is alone in the Middle East. There is barely a mention of Israel’s strategic role in the region.

The Zionists have deliberately conflated the terms ‘Jew’ and ‘Zionist’. Support for the Palestinians has become ‘anti-Semitism’. PSC’s response has been to abandon opposition to Zionism. A search of its Annual Plan contains no mention of the word ‘Zionism’.

Those opposed to the resolution needed to obtain 25% of the vote. In the end we obtained 24.16% - just 113 people, 1.5% of PSC's total membership, voted for the new constitution

PSC AGM and the New Constitution

All of this came to a head at PSC’s recent AGM on March 19^th where any debate about a new proposed constitution was rendered impossible. One of the drawbacks of Zoom is that it enables those who set up the meeting to tightly control the proceedings and through the use of the webinar facility to atomise those taking part.

The Chat facility, which enables participants to discuss issues with each other, was disabled. The control freaks in PSC’s ruling clique, most notably its Director Ben Jamal, were determined that members who attended the AGM were not able to have any horizontal contact or communications with each other.  This is no different to the behaviour of Starmer’s apparatchiks in the Labour Party.

The Executive proposed an entirely new Constitution. Its reason was that the existing constitution had become misaligned with the Articles of Association of PSC Ltd. No proof that this was a problem was ever produced. Since 2004 PSC has been both a limited company and a campaigning organisation, which legally was an unincorporated association.

Members were lied to.  They were told that they had to approve a new constitution, unamended, because it was a Special Resolution under the 2006 Companies Act which requires 15 days of any amendment to the Articles of Association (a company’s constitution).

However there was absolutely no reason why an Extraordinary General Meeting could not have been called in 4 or 6 weeks time and amendments submitted within that time frame. Debate however was the last thing that PSC’s ruling clique wanted.

Leadership loyalist Diane Langford speaking in the constitution debate

PSC’s New Constitution Represents A Shift of Power From the Membership to PSC’s Ruling Clique

Below are a few examples of the mindset behind the proposals.

Section 4 of the old constitution was headed ‘Membership’. The new constitution has a much enlarged and prescriptive Part III ‘Membership.’ Section 6 not only requires that you agree with PSC’s Aims and Objectives but that you ‘uphold the Values of the campaign’. There is a new section 5, ‘Values’ which is as vacuous as anything New Labour produced.  PSC’e Values are a substitute for having Principles. These values include defining ‘anti-Semitism’ as a form of racism as opposed to prejudice in the former constitution.

Clause 4.6 of the 2015 Constitution specified that someone expelled from the organisation had the right of appeal to the following AGM. No such provision now exists.  Such a person merely has the right under s.10.4 to appeal ‘in line with the Appeal Process referred to in the relevant Regulation.’ Except there are no regulations and if and when they are drawn up they do not need to be approved by the membership.

Dave Chappell of Exeter PSC speaking in the debate

Under s.9.1 members must ‘support and promote the Aims, Objectives and Values of the PSC’. Given that the values are subjective this hands absolute power to the Executive Officers. There was no such stipulation in the previous constitution and no explanation as to why this is needed now.

Members must now also (s.9.2) ‘abide by the Code of Conduct and Constitution’. The Executive drew up a Code of Conduct which was a mere 25 times as long as the previous code of conduct of 98 words. It is effectively a charter for a future witchhunt. It does not need to be approved by anyone other than the Executive. Again there was no such stipulation in the previous constitution nor has there been any explanation as to why such a provision needs to be introduced now.

Clause 5.3 of the old Constitution stipulated that ‘All branches should adopt a constitution, which must contain...’ and it listed 5 non-controversial requirements such as a requirement for officers to be members of PSC nationally and to hold an AGM.

The new s.13.6. stipulates that ‘All branches shall have a constitution, approved by the Executive Committee.’ The original idea was to go further and divide members of PSC branches into two. Those who are members of national PSC and those who weren’t. The latter would have been unable to vote in elections for local officers. It was withdrawn after an outcry but it betrays the mentality of those who drew up this constitution.

What is the reason for local constitutions to be approved by national PSC?  None was given. The new 13.7.2. says that ‘all branch members shall abide by the PSC’s Aims, Objectives, Values and Code of Conduct.’ This is entirely new and hands powers to a future Executive to conduct a political witchhunt.

It is not just the wording of the new constitution but the mentality behind it. There is a new section 7 ‘Rights of Members’ but apart from the right to attend the national AGM and Branch Forum, which already existed there are no additional rights.

The new section 9 ‘Responsibilities of members’ lays out that Members ‘must’ support and promote the Aims Objectives and Values of PSC. Note the word ‘must’.

But when it comes to the Executive then the language changes. Section 18.1 says that ‘The Executive Committee shall be accountable to the membership for various tasks.’  The word ‘must’ is replaced by ‘shall’. It is in this authoritarian spirit that the whole of this verbose constitution was drawn up.

Rob Ferguson of the SWP giving loyal support to PSC's ruling clique as they remove opposition to Zionism from the Constitution

You might expect members of the Socialist Workers Party, who are nominally anti-Zionist, to have opposed this constitution, especially its proposal to remove opposition to Zionism.  Not a bit of it.  Tom Hickey and Rob Ferguson gave fulsome support to the Executive’s proposed Constitution on the grounds that we should not bother discussion constitutions. We should all just get on with campaigning!

According to the SWP we don’t need to think about things like the political aims and goals of PSC, still less its internal democracy. Given that there is no internal democracy in the SWP, the result of which was the rape crisis scandal in 2013, they couldn’t see the need for anyone else to take democracy seriously.

As Hickey and Ferguson were speaking, their Scottish comrades in Stand Up to Racism were busy welcoming Glasgow Friends of Israel and the Confederation of Friends of Israel Scotland onto their annual ‘anti-racism’ march complete with the Israeli flag. This meant that Muslim organisations were unable to participate in the march. This was of no concern to them. Fearful of being accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ the SWP allowed the Zionists to march with them. This was abject political cowardice and opportunism.

Louise Regan, Chair of the afternoon session and Iyas AlQasem, who chaired the committee that drew up the new constitution

The Quisling Palestinian Authority and Murder of Nizar Banat

PSC’s ruling clique also opposed a motion condemning the Quisling Palestine Authority which had murdered Palestinian resistance fighter Nizar Banat. His family personally contacted me to offer their support for the motion and sent a message, which I read out. PSC Executive were not prepared to condemn the PA, which is Israel’s military subcontractor in the West Bank.

When Donald Trump cut all funding to the Palestinians, including the PA, he made an exception as regards funding the Palestinian security forces at Israel’s special request.

The PA’s security forces work closely with the Israeli military and its secret police Shin Bet. They arrest and interrogate (i.e. torture) Palestinians when supplied with names by Shin Bet before handing the prisoners over to the Israelis. This however cut no ice with Ben Jamal, Kamal Hawwash or PSC Executive.

PSC Refuse to Say Anything About the Two State Solution

Today the main supporters of the two state solution are Zionist groups like Labour Friends of Israel. They support it because they know it will never happen but it’s a useful smokescreen and alibi for continued settlement. Unsurprisingly my motion opposing the two state solution was met with the Executive’s opposition.

The Palestine Action motion, which had been gutted by the Executive's amendment, was still opposed by a hardcore of 21 members who oppose any form of direct action, with 19 unable to decide  what they think.

Palestine Action

The best thing that has happened to the Palestine solidarity movement in Britain in the past 5 years was the creation of Palestine Action.  Through the use of direct action and community campaigns in like Oldham and Leicester Elbit actually closed their factory in Oldham because they could no longer protect it.

None of this stopped Ben Jamal waging an 18 months war of attrition against PA including the dissemination of bogus legal advice to PSC branches warning them off contributing to their funds.  He also made allegations of anti-Semitism. The details are in this paper.

Robyn Dasey of Brixton PSC speaking

PSC’s repeated boasts that it is building a mass movement that will mainstream Palestine is just that. A boast. ‘Mainstreaming’ is jargon for persuading the British Establishment to cut its ties with Israel.

The main achievement of PSC to date is to build itself into another NGO whose priority is maintaining itself. Its support for its own activists is secondary. When BDS first took off in Britain PSC opposed it. PSC today is a politically timid organisation bent on appeasing the British Establishment. That is why it has put on its platforms Zionists like Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry.

What is worse is that PSC is controlled politically by a secretive ex-Trotskyist organisation, Socialist Action which believes that China is a socialist society. It is Socialist Action’s iron grip on PSC’s leadership which is responsible for PSC failing to develop politically.

As someone who helped found PSC in 1982 I don’t take the step of resigning lightly but as long as PSC is tightly controlled by a few individuals it will never build the mass movement that it talks about.

PSC’s lack of any anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist politics means that it is helpless when faced with a concerted Zionist campaign such as that over ‘anti-Semitism’. 

In 1993 I resigned from PSC when it supported the Oslo Accords, rejoining in 2005. As I predicted at the time, the Oslo Accords, of which the Palestinian Authority is the bastard fruit, represented the greatest setback to the Palestinian struggle since the Nakba. I will continue to be a member of my local Brighton and Hove PSC.

Tony Greenstein

Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s 2021 Virtual AGM was exactly that – completely divorced from reality

 PSC’s leadership showed its contempt for members when it refused to support either David Miller or Palestine Action

 On Saturday PSC held its AGM, delayed from January because of COVID. Holding the conference online was an opportunity to involve people who normally would not have been able to attend. It also provided a chance to fightback against the ongoing attacks by Zionist organisations against Palestine solidarity activists and support for the Palestinians.

Needless to say PSC’s leaders were determined to squander the opportunity just as they have done for the past 5 years. It was clear from the start that the main concern of PSC Executive was to ward off criticism. The first thing they did was to rule out of order two emergency resolutions.

Despite being attacked itself PSC refused to respond to Zionist attacks

There were 2 possible formats for the AGM. Either a webinar, in which no member of the audience can see another member or a normal zoom session where everyone is equal. Clearly equality with the membership was the last thing PSC’s leaders had in mind so they used the webinar format in order to tightly control proceedings.

One of the few good things about PSC AGMs previously has been that you get to meet different people. The chat feature replicates that. People chatting amongst themselves without being supervised was the last thing that Ben Jamal, Ben Soffa, Kamel Hawwash and Louise Regan wanted. The ‘chat’ feature was therefore disabled. I asked repeatedly in the Q&A feature why this was so but of course no answer was forthcoming. I was simply told not to use the ‘Q&A’ feature for discussing such matters!

It is clear that Socialist Action, the clique that controls PSC, was determined that PSC would maintain a façade of democracy whilst at the same time clamping down on members’ ability to communicate with each other.

Learning from the past

Members were presented with an Annual Report and an Annual Plan. Unsurprisingly no mention was made of the Zionists’ 5 year long ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign which led to the defeat of Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party’s only pro-Palestinian leader. Nor was any mention made of the actions of Labour’s new Zionist without qualification leader, Keir Starmer, in suspending Corbyn for comments made about the trite and flawed EHRC Report. Indeed the EHRC Report itself was not mentioned. The only mention of the Labour Party was in the following objective:

Lobbying, with allies, the Labour Party regarding the protection of space to campaign for Palestine, at various levels within the Party.

That is the extent of PSC’s ambition. Meaningless verbiage.

For over 5 years the Zionists and the British Establishment, led by the BBC, waged a campaign alleging that Labour was an anti-Semitic party. During that time PSC sat on the sidelines like a frozen rabbit. It believed if it got on with business as normal, then it would all blow over. In fact the crisis has become deeper as PSC sinks into political irrelevance. The adoption of the IHRA and attacks on dissident and anti-Zionist academics is one part of that. As I predicted at the time the war in the Labour Party has spilt out into wider society.

In April 2016 I wrote a letter to the current Secretary of PSC, Ben Soffa, arguing that PSC should not be abstaining from the Zionists’ political attacks. Ben’s response oozed with complacency.

PSC Conferences in Previous Years

We have since seen the IHRA being wielded by the Zionists and their supporters. A Stand Up To Racism meeting with a JVL speaker Glynn Secker was banned from meeting at Tower Hamlets town hall and to prevent a Big Ride meeting in the same borough.

Despite 14 trade unions being affiliated to PSC, there has been an adamant refusal to raise the issue of the IHRA in the unions. Since the unions effectively control the Labour Party this would have been a means to combat the adoption in 2019 of the IHRA.

Pal Action activist Huda Ammori being arrested

What is Missing from the Annual Plan & Report

The Annual Report was more interesting for what was not in it than what was in it.

For example there was no mention of the fact that 4 members of PSC Executive resigned in the last year. This followed on from the forced resignation from PSC of a staff member, Huda, who claimed she had been bullied and harassed out of her post by PSC’s Director.

Huda went on sick leave with depression. Before going she had submitted a Grievance. Instead of investigating it PSC Chair Kamel Hawwash pressurised Huda to withdraw the Grievance. Huda was also forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of a settlement. In this time of #metoo PSC members might want to ask questions about the ethics involved in this.

Emily Thornberry telling Labour Friends of Israel that Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East - PSC nonetheless put her on its platform

Last year Adie Mormech from Manchester PSC was overwhelmingly elected as Campaigns Officer displacing the person who had held the post for a decade without seeming to do anything. Adie was a long standing activist.  Kamel Hawwash’s first comment to him was that  the post was being abolished the following year!

Apart from the fact that there had been no discussion on this proposal it shows the depth of bitterness felt by PSC leaders at the removal of one of their own. Suffice to say shortly after Adie resigned along with the others, thus demonstrating that in practice ordinary members of PSC Executive don’t control the organisation.

Propaganda blast from the Jewish Chronicle - PSC sees no need to defend the victims of the Zionists

Emergency Motions on David Miller and Elbit

Brighton & Hove PSC proposed 2 emergency motions – one supporting David Miller, the Bristol University academic under attack by the Union of Jewish (i.e. Zionist) Students. The second one was in support of Palestine Action, which has been conducting a series of high profile actions against Elbit Systems arms company in Britain.

Suffice to say the Executive has given PA no support. But instead of the Executive and Ben Jamal defending their refusal to give support they simply ruled out both motions on the grounds that they weren’t emergencies, which they clearly were given that both motions referenced events occurring since the closing days for motions.

The reason for this political cowardice was that their behaviour has been indefensible. There is a refusal to be honest with members about PSC’s leaders unwillingness to have anything to do with issues or groups involved in direct action which might lead to conflict with the state.

The motion on Palestine Action extended support and solidarity to a group formed last July. PA has engaged in a campaign of direct action against Elbit Arms factories. PA has done more in its short history than PSC has in the past decade to make the issue of Elbit into a live campaign.

In the Annual Plan there is one passing reference to Elbit and this:

Work with key partners including CAAT and Drone wars to look at building strategic campaigns focussed on arms manufacturers complicit in the arming of Israel with a presence in the UK, including Elbit Systems.

In other words PSC plans to do nothing. Yet instead of supporting Pal Action PSC has done its best to undermine it.

Scottish PSC is an example of a Palestine solidarity group which doesn't compromise on its principles and abandon its friends

Why? A combination of sectarianism towards any other solidarity group on Palestine coupled with an aversion to direct action that may mean that PSC ends up supporting those who break the law. The fact that Elbit is actively complicit in war crimes in Gaza, supplying 85% of Israeli drones is irrelevant. This is the price of ‘respectability’.

Earlier this year PSC distributed the gist of a legal opinion (but not the opinion itself) to the branch forum. The opinion was based on a far-fetched scenario whereby the Police would target those who gave money and support to Pal Action. This has never happened before and is highly unlikely.  Not content with this PSC contacted the Boycott National Committee to get them to join in the attack. Unfortunately the BNC made the mistake of believing it had the right to tell activists in this country, of which they have no knowledge or experience, how to conduct solidarity action. 

In March I wrote to Omar Barghouti of the BNC. Omar hasn’t replied which suggests that both he and the BNC are embarrassed by their stance. It is particularly unfortunate because Omar promised me two years ago that he and the BNC wouldn’t get involved in internal differences with the solidarity movement in Britain.  I wrote:

Under the guise of ‘discharging its duty of care to members’ PSC branches were told of “possible legal consequences of their association or support for Palestine Action's activities.” The legal advice is hypothetical and extremely unlikely to materialise in practice because of the difficulty of proving any causal link between support in general for PA with a particular action. To my knowledge such a prosecution has never been attempted before by the State as a way of attacking direct action campaign groups.

The advice of Hawwash and Jamal can best be characterised as irresponsible scare mongering whose primary motive is to harm PA rather than protect individual members of PSC.  The advice is irresponsible because, if it were adopted, it would cut off the source base of direct action groups from sympathisers. Not just PA but Extinction Rebellion, anti-road groups such as the HS2 campaign and Greenpeace.

The motion on David Miller recognised that the attack on him, like a similar attack on Ken Loach was not because of ‘anti-Semitism’ but because both of them were anti-Zionists. The motion declared

its full support for David Miller and any other anti-Zionist academics who are attacked by the Union of Jewish Students. This AGM sees any attempt to discipline David Miller as an attack on academic freedom and in particular the freedom of academics to research the links between Zionism, its organisations, and Islamaphobia and British racism

Zionist Establishment academic David Feldman sticks the knife into David Miller in Haaretz

This was too much for PSC’s leaders who had previously issued a mealy mouthed statement Protecting Palestinian Rights and Academic Freedom. The crucial part of the statement read:

This month saw the IHRA being cited by groups campaigning for an Oxford college to deny space for celebrated film maker Ken Loach to discuss his career. More recently we have witnessed calls from a range of groups, including student groups, for the sacking of David Miller, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Bristol. This followed Professor Miller condemning Zionism as a racist ideology, describing the role of the state of Israel in promoting and coordinating efforts to delegitimise activism for Palestine globally, and outlining the links between some pro-Israel groups and the promotion of Islamophobic narratives.

When addressing such issues, it is crucial to apply depth, context, and clarity, and to avoid narratives that oversimplify the interlinks between groups which oppose actions in support of Palestinian rights, and Israeli state actors. Doing so obscures our understanding of the way political actors’ function. At worst, it can risk drawing on anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power.

Whilst some have criticised Professor Miller for lacking such depth and clarity in the way he has couched his remarks, those leading the call for Professor Miller to be sacked are straightforwardly asserting that to define Zionism as a movement and political ideology that is racist is inherently anti-Semitic..

Far from giving full support to David, who was subject to a vicious attack by the Israeli funded Union of Jewish Students and over 100 right-wing MPs and Peers, PSC joined in the attack suggesting that David Miller’s writings on Zionist groups and their links ‘risk(s) drawing on anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power.’

There is one word for this and it is scabbing.  Ben Jamal, PSC Executive don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘solidarity’ in PSC’s name.

Why did this occur?  Because PSC Executive refuses to see the links between Zionism, the movement and ideology that formed Israel, and the racism and human rights abuses that Palestinians experience. It take a particular kind of stupidity to make this arbitrary distinction.

PSC believes if it concentrates on human rights and ignores Zionism then it can continue as usual. This is like a group campaigning against human rights abuses under Apartheid in South Africa refusing to take a stance on Apartheid.

Zionist attacks on Professor Miller stem from his expert witness evidence in the attempted deportation of Raed Saleh, who won his case. PSC in 2011 organised Saleh's speaking tour. They have shown their gratitude to Miller in the way that only Socialist Action knows

The Zionists are not stupid whatever else may be. They know very well that accusations of anti-Semitism have had a chilling effect on free speech on Palestine. You don’t have to take my word for it.  The author of the IHRA misdefinition Kenneth Stern, in testimony to the House of Representatives admitted that ‘Congress has enshrined a definition that can only help to chill, if not suppress, their political speech.’ referring to Palestinian students. What Kenneth Stern can see Ben Jamal, Kamel Hawwash and the rest of the PSC leadership cannot see. If the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign had no effect on support for the Palestinians the Zionists wouldn’t undertake such campaigns.

I know of at least 4 universities where academics are under attack from the Union of Jewish Students who claim that Jewish students (not anti-Zionist Jews of course) fear for their safety if academics are allowed to speak freely on Zionism and Palestine. PSC is determined to repeat its mistakes of the past four years. It has neither learnt nor forgotten anything.

After the defeat of attempts to debate the 2 emergency motions I moved remitting back of the whole Annual Report.  My arguments rested on PSC’s refusal to support Miller and Pal Action. I began by noting that it is useless having a plan if you have no strategy. 

When the Zionists barked, Ben Jamal and PSC jumped to attention

All PSC does is organise routine activities. It initiates no political initiatives of its own. It never takes the offensive against the Zionists. Uf you do a word search of the Annual Report and Plan you will not find a single instance of the words ‘Zionist’ or ‘Zionism’. PSC presumably believe that Israeli Apartheid fell out of the trees, an accident of nature (or god).

PSC seeks a spurious legitimacy from the political establishment despite the fact that they are regularly spurned. Apart from Jeremy Corbyn there is not one parliamentary patron of PSC.  PSC got rid of Baroness Tonge after the Zionists kicked up a fuss.

The only reason that Thornberry and Nandy speak on PSC platforms is because PSC never questions the right of the Israeli state to exist as a Jewish state

In their desperation to seek recognition PSC has put open Zionists such as Emily Thornberry and Lisa Nandy on its platforms. At one meeting Nandy left the meeting before Omar Barghouti could speak in order that she would not be seen to be associated with BDS! PSC’s leaders think that this kind of appeasement actually brings results!

Lisa Nandy, who was the JLM's candidate for Labour leader and  believes calling Israel 'racist' is antisemitic speaks on PSC Platform, chaired by Hawwash

It was reported that after Stephen Kinnock had called Israel’s behaviour on the West Bank "tantamount to profiting from the proceeds of crime".

Nandy told the Jewish leaders that Kinnock, a consistent and long-standing critic of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians, had been given a "dressing down" for his remarks made during the Commons debate.

"Lisa made no secret of the fact she and the leader were angry with Kinnock," the source is quoted as saying. "Especially after all the work that has been done to try and restore Labour's relationship with the Jewish community."

It is a fact that PSC has made no impact on politicians. It has no sponsors or supporters. Its timidity and caution (some would say cowardice) invites contempt not respect. 

But today as activists from Palestine Action face prison for closing down Elbit factories and causing them £2m losses, PSC runs a mile from confrontation with the British state.  In so doing PSC ignores the mass movement that has sprung up against the Police Bill. It seeks to influence opinion makers in the British Establishment oblivious to the fact that support for Israel is a cardinal tenet of Britain’s Foreign Policy Establishment. 

Tony Greenstein speaking at a previous PSC AGM

Anti-Zionism and support for the Palestinians is subversive in Britain today. Under the Prevent programme it is proof of extremism. Retreating in the face of Zionist fire simply emboldens our enemies.

A few words on Socialist Action. It came from the International Marxist Group which split into a number of disparate tendencies in 1982, most of which have set off in a quasi Stalinist direction, abandoning class politics in the process. It used to provide Ken Livingstone’s closest advisors and had at least one member in Corbyn’s coterie.  It also has one member of Labour’s NEC, Gemma Bolton. It is like a submarine except that it never surfaces. It produces no paper simply an email bulletin. It takes over groups like a parasite but never has the courage to declare itself publicly.

The question which arises is whether or not activists should conclude that PSC is beyond saving and that it is incapable of reform. As one of the original founders of PSC in 1982 I would say that the jury is out on this question.

Tony Greenstein