Marching for Palestine: A Humbug Controversy

The recent attacks by Hamas on Israel have cast a dark shadow on the land that is holy by many. Israel’s response to the threat Hamas poses has been repressive and severe for some time now. Since the recent assault, which left more than 1400 Israeli civilians dead and over 200 more taken as hostages, the Israeli government has hard-lined. Gaza, the Palestinian territory where Hamas is based, sheltering itself amongst civilians, is being reduced to rubble by Israeli rockets. “If there is a hell on earth, it is the north of Gaza” says Jens Laerke, spokesman for the UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Palestinians living in the area have seen immense suffering and loss of life, in what The New Yorker has termed a ‘humanitarian catastrophe’.

Yet Israel seems resolute in its military proceedings. The state, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a mainstay of Israeli politics since 1996, has been trying to crush Hamas for a long time. Or so it seems. Palestinian militant groups, such as Hamas, erode diplomatic relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) led by Mahmoud Abbas. Netanyahu is alleged to have allowed Hamas to remain active in Gaza, to deride the chances of a Palestinian state coming to fruition. This kind of cynical diplomacy can also be seen in his recent alleged rejection of a five-day ceasefire proposal, which Hamas asked for in exchange for the release of hostages. Instead, the state of Israel has launched a military invasion of Gaza, neglecting the protesting families of the many hostages, now more than ever in danger of falling before the gun.

It is therefore evident, though often ignored, that the state of Israel represents few Israelis, just as Hamas and other Palestinian Militant groups represent few Palestinians. The tragedy of the current situation along the eastern Mediterranean lies in the fact that the polemical subject seems to ignore this very fact: that falling victim to the atrocities caused on both sides are human beings who have little association to the political dynamics of the larger conflict. This is a reality that external states, such as the government of the United Kingdom, must recognise.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t. Large protests have been held in London in a show of solidarity for the Palestinian people. Although they haven’t caused any severe disturbances or violence, they have provided room for blatant and misplaced antisemitism, at times to notorious levels (protests in France have also seen shocking antisemitism). A phrase which has been especially echoed recently is one from which many interpretations are drawn. “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” is claimed by many Palestinians and Arabs to be a phrase calling for peace in the region (the saying refers to the river Jordan, which delineates the western border of Israel and the West Bank). However, its association with the expulsion of Jewish people living west of Jordan, an interpretation suggestive of genocidal intent has made it a highly controversial phrase to use, especially in the current context (it has been used by Hafez al-Assad in the past, and can be found in Hamas’ 2017 constitution).

In response to this, both the Conservative and Labour parties have failed to resist the beguiling urge to take sides. Ex-Labour MP Andy McDonald recently used the phrase at a protest in London. He has since been suspended from the party. Rampant on twitter was the Home Secretary, Conservative MP, and common Tory zealot Suella Braverman, who proclaimed that it would be disingenuous to invoke anything other than the destruction of Israel by protesting. She called protests demanding a cease-fire in Gaza ‘hate marches’, and even put pressure on the Metropolitan Police to ban the marches scheduled on November 11th, after the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed it was ‘provocative and disrespectful’ to hold a protest on Armistice Day.

The result of this inflammatory governance is that far-right counter-protestors felt encouraged to 'defend' the Cenotaph memorial, ultimately storming through police blockades and chanting nationalistic slogans. Meanwhile, the pro-Palestine protest proved to be historic, reported only minor incidents with police, and completely avoided the memorial service. Although it is worth mentioning that the presence of the MET police was largely as a result of the Home Secretary’s preparation for Saturday, it is clear that the governments political stance on the conflict between Israel and Palestine failed to unite the British public on Armistice Day.

Braverman’s comments on the situation in fact did the opposite. She has notably recently wagered her reputation in what seems to be a double blunder, having also recently claimed that homelessness is a ‘lifestyle choice’. It is likely that the controversy the Conservatives generated around the Palestine protest encouraged the upheaval that followed. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, blamed the Home Secretary for the violence, claiming that her comments had ‘encouraged and emboldened’ the actions of the far-right, including groups like the notorious English Defence League (EDL). The unnecessary political dissonance Braverman’s childish actions caused have now resulted in her sacking, an act which would have been a victory for the opposition, if Sunak hadn’t simultaneously appointed former Prime Minister and primary Brexit culprit David Cameron as foreign secretary.

Braverman has certainly approached the contentious and sensitive situation unfolding in Israel with great irresponsibility, a fact proven by her accusation that the police hold double standards on rallies (the primary reason for her losing her position as Home Secretary). Not only did she choose to criticise the police, an institution for which she holds full parliamentary responsibility. Her comments are also ridiculous: far-right protests brimming with chauvinism have historically been tolerated by the same police force that arrests and imprisons activists for protesting climate change. That the police made 126 arrests on Saturday, the majority of which were far-right counter-protestors, only points to the fact wether someone is arrested or not solely depends on the level of public disturbance, not political motives.

It is therefore well within reason that Sunak has decided to relieve her of her duties as Home Secretary. In a time, such as this one, where comments on sensitive and divisive issues can have inflammatory consequences, democratic politicians have a strong responsibility over public opinion. Disparaging what have been mostly peaceful demonstrations and inciting riots are tell-tale signs of purposely divisive politics.

Yet, now more than ever is not the time to pick sides or play favorites, and it is certainly not the British Governments place to do so. The conflict in Gaza is a highly sensitive issue, in which few stand to gain and many suffer. In the interest of the British public, politicians would do good to cultivate unity, rather than sow hate.

Published in ROAR NEWS Print Edition 5th December, 2023