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
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.
 |
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
