WeeklyWorker

26.07.2006

Wrong slogans

Peter Manson and Dave Isaacson report on the July 22 demonstrations against Israel's onslaught on Lebanon

There was no underestimating the passion and anger of demonstrators out on the streets on July 22. They were right to be angry: the ferocity of Israel's onslaught on Lebanon, the killing of hundreds of civilians, the destruction of the means of life - and the hypocrisy of Bush and Blair in excusing and effectively encouraging it all.

But there were two big, related problems. Firstly the numbers mobilised, despite the usual hype of the organisers, were tiny compared to the last few years - the Stop the War Coalition claimed 30,000 on the London march, although official police estimates gave only 7,000, and the true figure was by our estimate somewhere in between. In many of the other demonstrations across Britain the protestors were numbered in hundreds rather than thousands.

However, the second problem is in fact more serious. No movement, no matter how large and internationally based, will be able to stop such outrages unless it is armed with the correct politics. And the correct politics is something that is singularly lacking on the part of the STWC leadership, dominated as it is by the Socialist Workers Party.

On the one hand, the SWP insists that the coalition, in the name of broadness, must not adopt any concrete positions beyond a few sweeping slogans - 'Hands off Lebanon', 'Freedom for Palestine', 'Don't attack Iran', etc. On the other hand, the SWP's current trajectory is in practice one of blurring its own politics with those of political islam - stressing the shared anti-imperialism and opting for an abstract 'justice' and 'peace'; and minimising what is in reality (or ought to be) a huge gulf between two rival programmes.

The result of these two factors is that it is political islam that makes the running. For example, at the rally outside Hyde Park (we were not permitted to gather inside - for some reason the authorities preferred to have one of London's main thoroughfares blocked on a Saturday afternoon for several hours) the first and last speakers both openly called for unconditional support for Hamas.

After introductory remarks from STWC chair Andrew Murray, the speaker from the Islamic Human Rights Commission kicked off with his statement "in solidarity with the Palestinian government of Hamas". For him, "A one-state solution is the only solution" - and it is clear what sort of state he has in mind.

In fact 12 out of the 23 platform speakers (including the chairs) were prominent islamists or representatives of British or Middle Eastern muslim organisations. In addition a long statement from Hezbollah was read out. Only five speakers could be described as working class partisans of any sort - comrade Murray himself, Andrew Burgin, who spoke for the STWC, George Galloway, Tony Benn and Keith Sonnett, deputy general secretary of Unison.

Of these only comrade Sonnett made any kind of proposal for stopping Israeli aggression that did not amount to falling in behind Hezbollah/Hamas - he called upon the 'international community' to impose sanctions. Presumably the US-UK should impose sanctions on themselves too.

By contrast, comrade Galloway declared: "I am here to glorify the Lebanese resistance. I am here to glorify Hezbollah." And he really did "glorify" Hezbollah leader Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, bestowing upon him a number of superlatives.

As for comrade Burgin, he proclaimed: "Democracy in Lebanon is Hezbollah. Democracy in Palestine is Hamas." And his 'action programme'? "When they bomb, we will march" - as we have been doing, again and again, in ever decreasing numbers.

The SWP itself was, unusually, not represented on the platform, but its comrades made themselves heard on the march with "We are all Hezbollah" - they wanted to merge with the supporters of political islam around them.

It was almost exactly three years ago that Chris Harman was reprimanding the SWP's French section, Socialisme Par En Bas, for having gone too far in adopting a not dissimilar slogan, 'We are all muslims': ""¦ I must say that you have the tendency to take up slogans without having evaluated all the implications and that do not come across as serious," he wrote. "Personally I find the slogan, 'We are all muslims', totally mistaken. For two reasons.

"Firstly, clearly you are not muslims. Muslims form a community where members share beliefs which they take more or less seriously. If you tell them, 'We are all muslims', they are within their rights to retort: 'Come with us to the mosque then' "¦

"Secondly, because the slogan does not take into account the oppression suffered by muslims. It is as if we are ignoring the response of the black population in general, and black nationalists in particular, which would be to say, 'You are minimising our oppression, for you do not suffer it every day'" (see Weekly Worker July 17 2003).

Will comrade Harman now be ticking off his members in Britain? They are clearly not Hezbollah. Would they volenteer for front line action in the Lebanon? Does not the slogan, 'We are all Hezbollah', minimise the oppression suffered by Hezbollah members and supporters?

There were other, smaller demonstration on the day, including in Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Kirkcaldy, Newcastle, Sheffield, York and Manchester.

In Manchester, around 2,000 people turned out. As in London, a sizable proportion were of Middle Eastern or Asian origin, while the majority were clearly mobilised by the left groups - the SWP/Respect being by far the largest. What was noticeable here too was the virtual absence of the Palestinian and Lebanese left.

Protected by the police, around 15-20 Zionists staged a counter-demonstration outside the BBC, displaying placards that read provocatively "Hamas out of Gaza" and "Hezbollah out of Lebanon" and baiting the marchers with calls of "Terrorists!" and "How many members of Hamas and Hezbollah are there among you?"

Unfortunately, while the speakers at the final rally were not short on denunciations of Israeli aggression and terrorism, and the hypocrisy of the US and UK governments, there was not much by way of a democratic solution to the underlying issue. The only speaker we heard propose two states (the PA system was terrible) described herself as being from the Israeli left and peace movement.

While it was positive that she understood the fundamental importance of mobilising the Israeli working class and progressives in solidarity with the Palestinians, it was also clear that she had dangerously disarming illusions in the 'peace process', as pursued by previous Israeli governments. It was obvious that her version of a two-state solution is quite different from the one the CPGB proposes, centred as it is around the importance of democratic national rights for both peoples, to be fought for unitedly by the Israeli and Palestinian working class.

Speakers from the SWP proposed no concrete solutions beyond getting as many people as possible to the next big demo - outside the Labour Party conference in Manchester on September 23. Beyond this they made platitudinous calls for "solidarity with the Palestinians"; "justice for the Palestinians"; and "freedom for Palestine". There was nothing concrete or tangible here or in their written literature. However, despite their understandable reluctance to state so clearly, it seems that their sympathy increasingly lies with those proposing some of the most reactionary programmes for "justice for the Palestinians".

Richard Searle of Manchester STWC claimed, to great cheers from the crowd, to "stand with the brave resistance fighters of Hezbollah" - without feeling the need for any caveats regarding the latter's reactionary programme. While the old (Cliffite) SWP line for a unitary, democratic and secular Palestine was far from perfect, in that it ignored the national rights of the Israeli Jews who have lived there for generations now, it was distinctly preferable to the SWP's current tailism.

At Respect's 2004 conference the SWP opposed a motion that put forward what was then its formal position: for a "unitary, democratic and secular state" for Palestine. It did this ostensibly so that those who disagreed with the word "unitary" would still feel welcome in Respect. However, it is now more clear than ever that this was not simply an opportunist sop, but the SWP junking the word 'secular', which it ludicrously believes will inevitably be rejected by muslims.

By elevating the oppressed to a level beyond criticism the SWP abdicates its internationalist duty to put forward democratic, working class solutions. As such it has no problem joining in with chants like "From the river to the sea: Palestine will be free". Presumably the comrades give no thought to the fact that this slogan has leverage over the Israeli Jewish population - but what does that matter? After all, it is the programme of political islam and that's what matters to the SWP nowadays.