Showing posts with label Oslo Accords. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oslo Accords. Show all posts

26 September 2025

Stop the Oil – Stop the Genocide - The Moral Rot of the Arab and Islamic World

 But for the Corrupt, Client Arab Regimes, Israel’s Holocaust in Gaza Could Have Been Prevented

As Rumy Hassan, an Emeritus Associate Professor at Sussex University explains, there was nothing inevitable about Israel’s Holocaust in Gaza. It could have been prevented from the start if the Arab regimes had exercised their economic and political power to prevent it.

Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed Bin Salman, Qatar’s Al Thani clique, Kuwait’s Sabah dynasty and all the other corrupt cliques that rule the Middle East are more afraid of their own people than the imperialist powers. These Arab elites are parasites who rob their people of their wealth. They prefer to fete and fawn over Trump than insist on an end to Israel’s genocidal rampage.

One of the ways that the West has achieved domination is by playing on the divisions in Islam. They have used the Islamic religion in order to divide and rule, playing on the differences between Shi’ite and Sunni Islam.

Ibn Saud was plucked out of the desert in the early 20th century and both armed and funded by British imperialism. The austere Wahabi sect was used to attack Arab nationalism and Hussein bin Ali, King of the Hejaz. Islam was their justification for repressing their own peoples. We have seen many iterations of this subsequently.

ISIS under its original name, Al Qaeda of Iraq, was a consequence of the American invasion of Iraq. Al Qaeda itself was a product of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and consisted of the fighters that Saudi Arabia exported to that country at the US’s request. As Hilary Clinton admitted Al Qaeda too was a creation of the US funding all manner of Islamic Fundamentalist groups as was the Taliban (in concert with Pakistan’s ISI – intelligence agency). See Whose Monster? A Study in the Rise to Power of al Qaeda and the Taliban

Hamas are exceptional in being from the Sunni branch of Islam although originally they were intended by Israel, which supported their creation, as a counter-weight to secular Palestinian nationalism.  Netanyahu in particular made support for Hamas an integral part of his opposition to a 2 State Solution. It is because they morphed into becoming a resistance organisation that Saudi Arabia has become their bitter enemy.

In the Yom Kippur War in 1973 Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, hoping to reconquer the territories they lost in the 1967 War. After initial successes they were pushed back by Israel with the help of the US Administration under Henry Kissinger.

Egypt’s Third Army, having crossed the Suez Canal, was surrounded in the Sinai peninsula. The Americans under Henry Kissinger applied extreme pressure on Israel not to attack them.

The Arab regimes, led by Saudi Arabia, instituted an immediate halt to oil supplies. There were 50% cuts in the first week increasing after that. Oil prices rose four-fold and the United States got the message and forced Israel under Prime Minister Golda Meir to call a halt.

The same could have been done anytime during the current Holocaust if the client Arab regimes had done the same. Unfortunately the situation in the Middle East today is not what it was in the wake of the disastrous Oslo Accords that Yassir Arafat signed up to which normalised relations with the Israeli state.

Having recognised Israel the PLO gave the green light to the Arab regimes to do the same. It is unfortunate that it was the leadership of the PLO led by Fatah who paved the way for America’s client regimes in the Arab East to also recognise and normalise relationships with the Israeli state, in what became known as the Abraham Accords.

It is significant that no Palestinian faction has made the demand to stop the oil (as far as I’m aware). This disastrous attitude to the Arab masses, who hold the key to the situation, has allowed Israel to attempt to complete the Zionist project unopposed by ethnically cleansing Gaza. The West Bank is set to follow if they are successful in Gaza. Indeed it is already happening.

It is a matter of shame that the Arab masses and the working class in particular have sat idly by watching the unfolding horror in Gaza. The death of these wretched regimes is long overdue. Not only are the Palestinians experiencing Genocide and unspeakable horrors but the Arab masses also have an interest in seeing that the wealth of the region is not squandered by their rulers in the casinos of the West and in buying up prestigious parts of London and Paris.

The Arab Spring of 2011 needs completing. The key Arab regimes that need to be deposed are those of Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The Al Qaeda HTS regime in Syria, which the West has given its full support to, should be next in line. The United States and the West are doing all they can to force the Lebanese state to disarm Hezbollah in order that Israel can have free reign to reconfigure Lebanon according to their confessional plans and no doubt begin to colonise the southern part up to the Litani river.

So far Hezbollah have rejected calls to disarm, knowing full well that if they do so they will leave Lebanon defenceless against Israeli attacks. Those, led by President Aoun, who are trying to strong arm the Shi’ite militias are doing Israel’s work for them. So far Hezbollah has refused to disarm.

All the Arab Kings and Sheiks, from the UER and Kuwait to Qatar need to be overthrown and the Arab people can then take their destiny in their own hands. Instead we saw, with Trump’s visit to the region, the Arab regimes from MBS in Saudi Arabia to the al-Thanis in Qatar fawning over Trump, a political gangster and felon.

Amazingly these regimes offered Trump trillions of dollars in arms contracts. The Al Thanis of Qatar outdid themselves in their fawning obeisance, obscenely offering Trump a new $400m presidential jet. The thanks that the Qatari Emir got was Israel’s bombing of the Hamas delegation in Doha.

Rumy Hasan’s article lays bare the fawning and treacherous behaviour of the Arab  regimes in all its gory detail.

Tony Greenstein

This article first appeared in Savage Minds, September 2025

The Moral Rot of the Arab and Islamic World

These Countries Have Been Complicit in the Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza

Rumy Hasan

Sep 21, 2025

Outside the mainstream media, there has been much commentary on the inaction of western governments regarding Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, many of whom are complicit, and in the case of the USA, not only complicit but a participant joined at the hip with Israel. So, when it comes to Israel, they are morally bankrupt and rank hypocrites by their complete disregard for international laws and conventions that they implore other countries, such as Russia, to follow. But there has been little comment on the role of the Arab and Islamic world—this is important because Palestinians are overwhelmingly Sunni Arabs. This article provides a small contribution to filling this lacuna.

On 11 November 2023, just over a month after the 7 October attacks by Hamas on Israel, Arab and Islamic countries held an extraordinary summit in Jeddah with the objective of discussing “the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people” (OIC, 2023). By then, it was clear that Israel was not just going after Hamas but systematically destroying Gaza and its citizens: the commencement of genocide. The lengthy resolution (which does not have paragraph numbers; Saudi Press Agency, 2023) that was adopted on 12 November stipulates:

We decide to: Condemn the Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip and the war crimes as well as the barbaric, inhumane and brutal massacres being committed by the colonial occupation government against the strip and the Palestinian people in the occupied West Bank, including East Al-Quds. We demand ceasing this aggression immediately.

It further states:

Inaction is considered a complicity that allows Israel to continue its brutal aggression that kills innocent people, children, the elderly, and women, and turns Gaza into ruin.

Call upon member states of the OIC and the Arab League to exert diplomatic, political, and legal pressures, and take any deterrent actions to halt the crimes committed by the colonial occupation authorities against humanity (emphasis added).

So, these two paragraphs point for the need for concrete actions to halt Israel’s “brutal aggression” and “crimes”. It further makes this commitment:

Activate the Arab and Islamic Financial Safety Net … to provide financial contributions and support — economic, financial, and humanitarian — to the government of the State of Palestine and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

It sets out this precondition: “The precondition for peace with Israel and the establishment of normal relations rests on ending its occupation of all Palestinian and Arab territories.”

So, what happened in the weeks and months after this summit? Pretty much nothing as no concrete actions were ever taken. Hence, no deterrence was provided and the slaughter and destruction continued. The countries which had normalised relations—Egypt, Jordan, and the signatories to the Abraham Accords (UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco)—did not rescind these. UNRWA was banned by Israel in early 2025 without a peep from the Arab and Islamic world.

The resolution makes this reference to Egypt: “Support all steps taken by the Arab Republic of Egypt to confront the consequences of the brutal Israeli aggression on Gaza. We support its efforts to bring aid into the strip in an immediate, sustainable and adequate manner.”

This was a grotesque distortion of the truth as Egypt, the largest Arab country with a population of over 100 million, has been complicit in the blockade of the Gaza strip: it has allowed Israel to control its border with Gaza, so that little aid has been allowed through, contributing to starvation and disease. Moreover, like Jordan, it ruthlessly represses public anger at the genocide. Egypt’s priority has been to ensure that it continues to receive the almost $2 billion aid from the USA each year, so adheres to the Camp David Accords and, accordingly, refrains from challenging Israel.

Leaving aside the actions of the non-state actors Hezbollah and the Houthis, since the 2023 summit, true to form, the governments of Arab and Muslim countries continued to do nothing despite the mounting toll amounting to over 200,000 deaths and injuries, the vast majority civilians, and Gaza being reduced to an uninhabitable rubble. A glaring example of their moral rot came in September 2024 when, during a meeting with the then US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman confessed: “Do I care personally about the Palestinian issue? I don’t, but my people do …” (The Atlantic, 2024).

A further example is that of the UAE which had kept a deafening silence throughout Israel’s assault and never hinted at leaving the Abraham Accords, when suddenly, following Israel’s announcement of more Jewish settlements in the West Bank in August 2025, its foreign minister Lana Nusseibeh piped up by proclaiming “Annexation in the West Bank would constitute a red line for the UAE” (BBC News, 2025). It beggars belief that the genocidal assault on Gaza and the killings and destruction in the West Bank did not cross a red line.

Wind the clock forward by 22 months, on 15 September 2025, the Arab and Islamic countries again held an extraordinary summit—this time in Doha, Qatar. The trigger for this summit was the bombing by Israel on 9 September of premises in Doha where Hamas representatives were deliberating upon a ceasefire deal. The Qataris naturally reacted with fury; housing the USA’s largest military base in the Middle East, they felt betrayed by the Americans, a supposed ally, for not preventing the attack. They now know that future Israeli attacks are possible and will, again, be greenlighted by the Americans.

There was some hope, even expectation, that this time, the summit would agree on concrete measures against Israel. The Final Communique makes many forceful points including:

1. Reaffirm that the brutal Israeli blatant aggression against the sisterly State of Qatar, and Israel's continued aggressive practices, including crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation and siege, as well as settlement activities and expansionist policies, undermine prospects for peace and peaceful coexistence in the region.

Paragraph 6 stipulates:

6. Support the efforts of States engaged in mediation, in particular the State of Qatar, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and the United States of America, to end the aggression on the Gaza Strip, and, in this context, to reaffirm the constructive role played by Qatar and its valued mediation efforts with their positive impacts in support of endeavors to establish security, stability, and peace …

The truth is that the USA is militarily and diplomatically assisting Israel in its aggression on the Gaza Strip and Egypt has been complicit in the blockade—hence, notwithstanding Qatar’s mediation efforts, there is no “security, stability, and peace” in the Strip. Quite the opposite.

There is as usual much condemnation and appeals to international law. Paragraph 14, however, makes a general reference to “urgent action”:

14. Reaffirm the necessity of urgent action by the international community to halt Israel's repeated aggressions in the region and to stop its ongoing violations of the sovereignty, security, and stability of States …

This is naïve and self-delusional as the “international community” (a meaningless epithet) has never taken any action “to halt Israel's repeated aggressions in the region” especially in the past two years when Israel’s actions reached genocidal levels.

Finally, paragraph 15 does advocate concrete action:

15. Call upon all States to take all possible legal and effective measures to prevent Israel from continuing its actions against the Palestinian people, including by supporting efforts to end its impunity, holding it accountable for its violations and crimes, imposing sanctions on it, suspending the supply, transfer, or transit of weapons, ammunition, and military materials — including dual-use items — reviewing diplomatic and economic relations with it, and initiating legal proceedings against it (emphasis added).

But there is no sign of any sanctions being imposed. The “supply, transfer, or transit of weapons, ammunition, and military materials” is done by western countries, above all the USA, which has shown no interest in halting this nor of ending economic relations. There has been no indication that the Arab countries who normalised relations with Israel, are reviewing, let alone terminating, these.

Paragraph 20 makes this false statement:

20. Commend the pivotal role played by the representatives of Arab and Islamic States that are members of the Security Council, foremost among them Algeria, Somalia, and Pakistan, in defending the Palestinian cause, in putting an end to the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, securing a ceasefire …

These countries certainly argued for it, but they decidedly did not put an end to the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and secure a ceasefire. As usual, the USA blithely ignored such overtures.

Paragraph 24 is, to put it euphemistically, economical with the truth:

… calls upon OIC Member States to exert diplomatic, political, and legal efforts to ensure Israel’s compliance, as the occupying power, with its binding obligations under the provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice on 26 January 2024 in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip.

There is no mention that the ICJ’s ruling stemmed from the initiative of South Africa—not of any Arab or Islamic country—to charge Israel for violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip.

So, just as in the 2023 summit of Arab and Islamic states, no concrete actions were set out in the communique of the 2025 summit for OIC members to take. With 57 member countries, comprising of an estimated 1.8 billion people or nearly a quarter of the world’s population, the Organisation of Islamic Countries boasts that after the UN, it is the largest bloc of nations. But when it comes to these countries’ co-religionists being mercilessly starved and slaughtered in Gaza, they have proved resolute in not taking any actions that could put real pressure on Israel and its backers to stop the genocide.

In May 2025, US President Donald Trump visited the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. While some $2 trillion of investment deals were reached, there was no mention by the Gulf leaders of Gaza, let alone their leveraging this enormous commitment, to pressure Trump to stop Israel’s assault. Qatar could also have used its personal “unconditional” gift to Trump of a Boeing aircraft valued at $400m to apply pressure but refrained from doing so. It acted as a US vassal and was rewarded by being bombed by Israel four months later with Trump’s knowledge

By wilfully ignoring a key point of the 2023 summit, Arab and Islamic countries thereby acknowledged their complicity in the genocide: Inaction is considered a complicity that allows Israel to continue its brutal aggression that kills innocent people, children, the elderly, and women, and turns Gaza into ruin.

Concrete actions that could have been taken

The most effective measure, with an immediate impact, would have been the Gulf states halting exports of oil and gas, and they could have asked other OPEC member states to join the embargo: spot prices would have shot up with governments becoming worried about the deleterious impact on their sluggish economies. There would have been inevitable anger from consumers, already suffering from high energy prices caused by the Ukraine war, and pressure on their governments to take firm measures. In turn, real pressure would likely have been applied to Israel to stop its offensive and withdraw from the Strip. This has a precedent: the 1973 OPEC oil embargo against countries that had supported Israel during the 1973 October (Yom Kippur) war.

Furthermore, they could have threatened to not follow through with investments promised to Trump with a further threat of disinvesting. This would certainly have concentrated western leaders’ minds, and the penny would have dropped that support for Israel was having a profound cost.

Another important measure would have been the annulling of all treaties with Israel: Egypt rescinding the Camp David agreement and Jordan annulling its peace treaty. True, the USA would have threatened to withdraw aid, but they could have retorted that stopping genocide is more important. The UAE, Bahrain and Morocco could have annulled the Abraham accords and so ended normalisation. The Palestine Authority could have terminated the Oslo Accords, thereby stopped being a quisling entity—and started to vigorously lobby Arab governments to take these actions, as well as lobbying western governments, especially the USA, to stop supporting Israel’s genocide and other myriad crimes.

The Arab League and OIC could have submitted a motion to the UN General Assembly similar to that of resolution 3379 of 1975 which deemed that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”—this would have doubtless again been adopted. They could also have called for an annual public holiday on May 15th to commemorate the Nakba demonstrating that the Palestinians are not isolated.

Not only were these actions of solidarity not taken but there is little sign of their even being seriously considered. The ineluctable truth is that over the genocide in Gaza, the Arab and Islamic world has demonstrated a deeply set moral rot.


References

BBC News (2025) September 4, UAE warns Israel that annexing West Bank would cross 'red line' - BBC News

Final Communique Issued by Arab-Islamic Emergency Summit in Doha (2025) September 15, Qatar news agency

OIC (2023) Joint Arab-Islamic Extraordinary Summit, November 11,

https://www.oic-oci.org/

Saudi Press Agency (2023) November 12, Joint Arab Islamic Extraordinary Summit Adopts Resolution on Israeli Aggression against the Palestinian People

The Atlantic (2024) Franklin Foer, September 25, The War That Would Not End - The Atlantic

Previous articles by Rumy Hasan on Savage Minds:

The Gaza War - by Rumy Hasan - Savage Minds

Free Speech and Hypocrisy - by Rumy Hasan - Savage Minds

An Assault on Free Speech - by Rumy Hasan - Savage Minds

(3) The BBC’s Coverage of Israel - by Rumy Hasan - Savage Minds

6 February 2024

Bristol University has just been found to have unfairly dismissed Professor David Miller - Yet Palestine Solidarity Campaign REFUSED to support him

We Need a New Palestine Solidarity Organisation since PSC is neither Democratic, Anti-Zionist or Politically Coherent

In 1982, just before Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Operation Peace for Galilee, a group of about 15 of us decided, at a meeting held at the University of London Union, to form Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

PSC then was anti-Zionist calling for a democratic, secular state in Palestine. This was a very different period from today. There was a radical Labour administration at the Greater London Council under Ken Livingstone which gave us support.  There was the Miners’ Strike in 1984-5. PSC fitted into all of this activism.

The decay in PSC began with the Oslo Accords, the single greatest political defeat for the Palestinians since the Nakba. It led to the legitimisation of Zionism as the United Nations overturned Resolution 3379 of 10 November 1975, which stated that Zionism was a form of racism.

Caroline Lucas, Brighton's Green MP, signed a statement with Tory racists calling for David Miller to be Sacked

As a result of Oslo, on 16 November 1991 the UN passed Resolution 46/86 overturning Resolution 3379. In exchange for minor concessions the PLO agreed to recognise the Israeli state.

In 1993 PSC voted at an Emergency AGM to endorse the Oslo Accords believing that Israel was going to agree to a Palestinian state. As I predicted at the time, the Oslo Accords, with the Palestinian Authority as Israel’s military subcontractor, substituted the faces of Israeli police for Palestinian ones.

I resigned from PSC and it wasn’t until 2005 that I rejoined at the invitation of PSC’s then General Secretary, Betty Hunter.

On 6 April 2022 I resigned again when PSC removed opposition to Zionism from a new Constitution.  In August 2022 I posted an email exchange I had had with Ben Jamal, PSC’s Director concerning the reasons for my resignation.

I did not take this step lightly but I felt that to remain a member of an organisation which was politically bankrupt and which consistently tried to appease the British Establishment and the Zionists was pointless.

Imagine the Anti-Apartheid Movement confining itself to opposing human rights abuses by the South African state whilst taking no position on Apartheid itself. By refusing to oppose Zionism, PSC refuses to oppose the ideology of the Israeli state that lies at the heart of its Jewish supremacist policies and ethnic cleansing.

PSC’s Disastrous Failure to Oppose the ‘Anti-Semitism’ Attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Left

PSC’s most egregious error was to ignore the Zionist attacks on Corbyn and the newly resurgent Labour Left. Corbyn had been PSC’s main parliamentary supporter. The failure to stand up to those crying ‘anti-Semitism’ was a fatal error that led to a serious defeat for the whole Palestine solidarity movement. It stemmed from PSC’s desire to present itself to Britain’s pro-Zionist Establishment as a safe and trustworthy pair of hands.

In March 2016 I was singled out by the Jewish Labour Movement  and suspended by the Labour Party. I wrote to PSC Secretary Ben Sofa on 11 April 2016 asking why PSC had been silent over the ‘anti-Semitism’ attaacks. Ben responded on 20 April in what was a master class in complacency. He wrote that

‘I make no apology for the fact that we do not engage in every debate some would wish to involve us in.’

First I was suspended, then Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone and Marc Wadsworth. More were to follow as Corbyn buckled. Throughout this time PSC did absolutely nothing. As far as they were concerned what was happening in the Labour Party was a foreign country yet, as we have seen, the Zionists’ ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign spread into virtually every area of society.

PSC seemed oblivious to how false allegations of anti-Semitism were being used to undermine solidarity with the Palestinians. They preferred engaging in routine activities to taking on the Zionist enemy.

When the Zionists, who at first pretended that their opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’ had nothing to do with Palestine, proposed that Labour adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which conflated anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, PSC continued to do nothing. Seven of the IHRA’s 11 ‘examples’ of anti-Semitism were to do with Israel not Jews. PSC refused to even support a picket of Labour’s National Executive in September 2019 which approved the IHRA.

As Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge wrote in Defining Anti-Semitism, the IHRA ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite.’

PSC confined themselves to writing letters to local authorities urging them not to adopt the IHRA. PSC made a written submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry and it helped commission an Opinion on the IHRA from Hugh Tomlinson QC and that was it.

PSC’s Alliance with the Trade Union Bureaucracy

PSC’s main achievement had been in the trade union movement. Most trade unions were affiliated to it. PSC could have used these affiliations to fight back against the adoption of the IHRA by increasing numbers of civil society groups at the behest of the Jewish Labour Movement and the Israeli Embassy funded Labour Friends of Israel. The trade unions controlled the Labour Party. PSC could have supported Corbyn against his Zionist detractors but they chose not to.

When PSC held a trade union conference in October 2019 I distributed leaflets opposing the IHRA at the conference.  Prior to this I had written, as had Brighton and Hove PSC, to Ben Sofa and Ben Jamal, PSC’s Director, asking that the IHRA be placed on the agenda of the conference. What was Jamal’s response? To throw me out of the conference for not having permission to distribute the leaflets! Suffice to say the IHRA was not on the agenda.

The IHRA and the Sacking of David Miller

At a time when the IHRA was being used to attack activists and academics, PSC sat on the sidelines. Over 150 local authorities had adopted the IHRA. Big Ride for Palestine was banned by Tower Hamlets council.

One particularly outrageous case was where the misnamed Campaign Against Antisemitism attempted to get Rebecca Gould, an academic at Bristol University sacked, because of an article ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’ which she had written on how the Holocaust and ‘the spectre of anti-Semitism’ is used to suppress discussion of Palestinian oppression. Even Kenneth Stern, the person who drafted the IHRA, condemned this attack as ‘McCarthy like’ and ‘chilling’.

Also at Bristol University Professor David Miller was dismissed as a result of a Zionist witchhunt. PSC refused to support David because his research was into the Zionist lobby. Instead they put out an anodyne statement which implicitly criticised him:

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.

After Miller’s dismissal PSC put out another statement which instead of condemning his dismissal called it ‘deeply concerning and sets a dangerous precedent’. It also failed to call for his reinstatement.

Today David Miller has been vindicated after an Employment Tribunal ruled that he had been unfairly dismissed and that anti-Zionism was a protected belief under the Equality Act 2000.

I have written asking Caroline Lucas to Apologise for Her Previous Support for David Miller's Dismissal

Internationally the Zionist campaign to target anti-Zionists via the IHRA was proceeding apace. The Bundestag in May 2019 condemned BDS as ‘anti-Semitic’. 

Why then did PSC confine its activities to making paper submissions and writing letters? The reason was PSC didn’t want to offend the trade union leaders who had given the IHRA their support and they didn’t want to jeopardise their affiliations by going to rank and file trade union members.

One of the most despicable of Starmer's supporters Lisa Nandy, a vociferous supporter of Israel's genocide in Gaza that PSC put on its platforms

Two States or a Unitary State? A Failure to Explain What PSC Wants to Achieve

PSC accepted that Israel was an Apartheid State but it refused to draw the obvious conclusions, namely that if Israel was an apartheid, state, then it had to go. It was afraid of saying that a Jewish state was an inherently racist state.

This was not a difficult thing to do. In January 2021 B’tselem, had not only declared that Israel was an apartheid state but that there was a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Jewish Supremacy was not a phrase PSC used.

This was followed up in April 2021 by Human Rights Watch which declared ‘A Threshold Crossed - Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution.’  A year later Amnesty International produced a Report, ‘Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians’.

Declaring for a unitary, democratic secular state was not difficult, except that PSC, under the control of a tiny ex-Trotskyist group Socialist Action, alongside various remnants of what had been the International Marxist Group, were unwilling to do so. 

In 2009 I pointed to the role in PSC of the secretive Socialist Action  group which with Jon Lansman had colluded in the ‘anti-Semitism’ witch-hunt in the Labour Party which the Jewish Chronicle then cited.

Btselem, which started life as a liberal Zionist group, declared that

‘More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea under a single rule.’

When Jenny Tonge Came Under Criticism From the Right-Wing Press PSC Abandoned Her

There is already a single state in Palestine but one in which half the population have no civil or political rights. PSC Executive’s pretext for refusing to declare in favour of a unitary state was that it was up to the Palestinians to decide this question but Palestinians are in no position to make any decision but it is clear that given the choice Palestinians want to live in the whole of historic Palestine.

An article for the Washington institute for Near Eastern Policy  explained that

the two-state solution (this) is no longer a popular position among Palestinians. Less than 40 percent of the Palestinian public—in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—supports it over one-state alternatives. Support for a two-state solution has declined steadily since 2018.

Further, most Palestinians believe that a two-state solution is unlikely to emerge from the conflict. Instead, a majority of them say they prefer to reclaim all of historic Palestine, including the pre-1967 Israel. A one-state solution with Arabs and Jews holding equal rights comes in second. Similarly, recent polling from PCPSR finds support among Palestinians and Israeli Jews for a two-state solution has dropped to 43 percent and 42 percent, respectively.

But even if Palestinians did support a two-state solution then that would only be because a state in the whole of Palestine was deemed impossible to achieve. PSC is not addressing Palestinians but British people. When people ask what we would like to see we should be clear – one state with equal rights for Jews and Arabs. 

One state was the demand of the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa. Only far-right White racists wanted a White state. The two-state solution in Palestine, which the West supports, is an apartheid neo-colonial solution. It leaves a racist Jewish state intact.

The real reason why PSC won’t support a one state solution is the trade unions. All Britain’s unions support 2 States. This allows them to support both the Palestinians and the Zionists. Not for the first time trade union leaders have faced both ways. On the one hand supporting Israel and on the other supporting its victims.

We saw this during the height of the false anti-Semitism campaign. Dave Prentis, the General Secretary of UNISON, pledged his support for the Palestinians and on the other hand wrote in the New Statesman ‘Why Labour must adopt the full IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.’

Why could Prentis and other union leaders do this?  Because historically the unions have been supporters of British imperialism. Instead of confronting unions with the choice of supporting an apartheid state or a democratic state, two states allows them to face both ways at the same time. They can support Israel (dressed up as opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’) and also support the Palestinians. It enables people like Prentis to work openly with the JLM.

Palestine Solidarity Campaign is a Human Rights NGO not a Political, Campaigning Organisation

Because PSC supports a two-state solution i.e. a ‘Jewish’ state and a Palestinian state, it sees its role as primarily one of opposing human rights abuses and in the current context Israel’s genocide. It allows the field to be clear for the Zionists and their ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign.

Since October 7 there have been a number of very large demonstrations in support of the Palestinians in Gaza. PSC has been one of 6 organisations - CND, Stop the War Coalition, Friends of Al Aqsa, the Palestinian Forum and the Muslim Association of Britain organising the demonstrations. By itself PSC is incapable, given its past record, of mobilising more than 5,000 people. In reality the demonstrations built themselves as people spontaneously joined them, appalled as they were by the continuing genocide in Gaza.

PSC’s Strategy of ‘Mainstreaming’

Emily Thornberry at Labour Friends of Israel dinner

The strategy of PSC is to mainstream the issue of Palestine. What this means is attempting to get the British state to adopt a pro-Palestinian position by winning over the Establishment. It is doomed to failure, as we have seen over Gaza, because it fails to take account of the fact that the British state is an imperialist state. The British Establishment is committed to its financial, economic and political interests world wide. Palestinians come very far down their list of priorities.

Anti-imperialism plays no part in PSC’s politics. That is why PSC has put on its platform vile Zionists like Emily Thornberry who declared at an LFI dinner that 'Israel is a Beacon of Freedom and Democracy'  before going on to say that supporters of the Palestinians (who she called ‘anti-Semites’) should be ‘drummed out of the party.’


 

Palestine Solidarity Campaign as a Wannabee Establishment Group

PSC and its Director Ben Jamal reacted with horror when Palestine Action, which was set up about 4 years ago, began a campaign of direct action against Elbit’s arms factories and those who were trading with it. They immediately attacked it, got the Boycott National Committee to do the same and issued bogus legal advice about the dangers of PSC branches supporting Palestine Action.

However the popularity of PA amongst PSC activists led PSC’s Executive to have to accept support for PA at the 2022 conference. However PSC have done zilch to implement that policy.

When Mick Napier and I were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 before Xmas Electronic Intifada contacted them. What was their reaction?  ‘No one is available to comment’. The British State is using ‘terrorism’ against Palestine solidarity activists and PSC has nothing to say about this attack on our freedom to speak out on Palestine.

PSC Attacks Its Own Members

PSC took fright when the 7 October breakout from Gaza concentration camp happened. They demanded that Manchester PSC take down a post from its website supporting the breakout. Harry Cole, political editor of The Sun, called the Manchester post “appalling” and suggested it was a matter for the police.

Despite the branch complying with PSC’s demands, PSC decided to suspend the officers of Manchester PSC anyway. As a result Manchester PSC has formally cut ties with PSC nationally and is now an independent group.  See UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign punishes Manchester branch

PSC Refuses to Condemn the Palestinian Authority

Despite its role as Israel’s military subcontractor, arresting Palestinians and handing them over to Israel, PSC has refused to utter a word of criticism of this Quisling Authority. A third of the PA’s budget goes on security, the highest in the world. Its security forces operate on behalf of the Israeli military. The PA are used to suppress demonstrations and opposition by Palestinians to Israel’s occupation. Mahmoud Abbas, its notional ‘President’ considers cooperation between the Israeli state and the PA as ‘sacred.

The security services of the PA are a bunch of thugs who in August 2021 murdered Palestinian activist Nizar Banat. My resolution to PSC AGM condemning his murder was opposed by PSC Executive and the sheep present voted it down.

The invasion of Gaza by Israel and the resulting genocide have created a mass movement in support of the Palestinians.  That movement will not always be around although Israel’s image will have been irreparably damaged. It is important that the opportunity should be taken now, when most groups that have sprung up – from Parents for Palestine to School students groups – have no connection with PSC to take steps to form a genuine, anti-imperialist solidarity movement and not a glorified NGO. We have no time to lose.

Tony Greenstein