David
Jamieson
Something
immense but not sufficiently recognised has taken place in the last few days.
The Gaza solidarity movement has outlived the British Government’s policy of
defence for Israel’s assault on Gaza. Just before this volte-face, the Gaza
solidarity movement achieved its second largest demonstration to date. It has,
therefore, scored another partial but real victory.
The
movement’s survival to now was by no means guaranteed. It had to be won from a
state and establishment that has denounced, smeared, banned, gagged, sacked,
arrested and jailed. This movement did not yield to attacks by police or far
right thugs encouraged onto the street by the government. It did not fall into
demoralisation after 19 months of consistent action. This had to be fought for,
organised, encouraged and achieved. It took enormous dedication and sacrifice,
not least from the people who have been, and continue to be, persecuted in ways
both draconian and life changing, and also petty but vindictive and constant.
This
is a movement which has involved both gigantic street processions and direct
action, an outpouring of literature and cultural production, consumer boycotts,
campus encampments and dissident electoral candidates. A bewildering array of
tactics has been unleashed in the name of stopping the killing in Gaza. It has
scored victories along the way; unseating pro-war MPs; facing-down protest-bans
and censorship, and even forcing the resignation of a Home Secretary. It has
helped to transform the attitude of millions toward British and western foreign
policy toward Israel, Palestine and the wider region.
There
are three qualifications that could be made to what I have said above; two we
should take seriously, and one we should not.
First
and foremost, this is a victory—not the victory. Gaza is in the grip of
starvation. The threat of a radicalised Israeli state hangs over the shattered
territory. Our own government is as devious as ever. Though foreign secretary
David Lammy’s condemnations mark a real shift in policy, the most significant
since the onslaught began, they are still more words than deeds. The U.S. and
western allies are angling for a controlled resolution that leaves justice
undone, the movement without vindication and the Palestinians without
self-determination. No one in this movement, having come so far, will be in any
mood for complacency.
Second,
no one would claim that the movement’s achievements come in a vacuum. Much is
changing in the world, not least the calculations at the apex of the world
system, and the balance of power in the region. Clearly, British foreign policy
is part of a wider shift with more than one cause. Yet this is always the case.
Social movements fight against the backdrop of the permanent revolution of the
world capitalist system. They must always adapt, respond and exploit moments of
historical change to be of use.
But
a third argument, we should have no more patience with. I refer to the
dismissal of ‘A to B marches’ as an effective tactic for the anti-war movement.
By
now, this idea—which persists in pockets of the activist left, rather than in
the wider movement or public opinion—is inexcusable in face of the evidence. As
noted above, the tactical repertoire of the movement has been enormous. It is
difficult to recall a movement in recent times more diverse, creative and
effective in the range of initiatives it has undertaken. This sweeping has
emerged organically from the wide, plural movement. But it has also often been
centrally driven. Look, for instance, at the workplace days of action—a
conscious attempt to bridge the traditional weaknesses of workplace
organisation and anti-war strike activity.
This
is not achievable without the huge national and local protest movement. The
London marches, several of which have now broken the half a million mark, are
the flagship of the whole movement. They are a central rallying point for all
those who want to voice their anger, far beyond activist circles. They keep the
movement visible despite a largely hostile media environment. They help
establish the movement as an unavoidable feature of national political life, no
matter how much the government and career politicians would wish it simply went
away. The movement has used this mass body as a launch pad for the tactical
array discussed above, and as a scaffolding to establish more infrastructure,
from trade unions to campuses and cultural organisations.
Just
consider what a disaster it would have been for the movement to cease the mass
marching. It would have scattered a strong movement, leaving many of its local
and national leaders to the full weight of persecution. All those who have gone
out on a limb—whether through direct action, or speaking out in institutions or
workplaces, would suddenly be more isolated. Any idea of a move away from mass
demonstrations is absurd and dangerous.
The
mass movement has outgrown the gripe about ‘A to B marches’. It has synthesised
broad, mass participation with radical action. For those left behind by these
developments, it’s time to graduate from a comforting fantasy about
wonder-tactics that will somehow deliver a total and final victory. That’s not
how any movement works. We are in this for a slog yet, and there will be more
serious debates and challenges to overcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment