The USA, European Union and Israel are maintaining and intensifying a full-scale blockade of Gaza. The situation is getting harder for the 1.5 million inhabitants by the day. Two thirds already live below the poverty line. The United Nations estimates that they could start running out of flour, rice, oil and other essentials within weeks.
Veronique Taveau of Unicef said, “The blockade of crossing points has made bringing in aid almost impossible. Medical stocks are reaching the critical level.” It is the duty of the antiwar, anticapitalist and labour movements to come to the aid of the people of Gaza.
The trade unions that support the Palestinians’ struggle should raise funds to send aid and challenge the Israeli blockade. Even if a flotilla of ships, carrying medicines, foodstuffs and fuel, was refused harbour by Israeli navy, its message would be clear and loud:
“We represent the real international community – the global working class movement in solidarity with the oppressed people of the world – not the United Nations Security Council. We demand free passage.”
Of course, direct action needs to be linked to a mass campaign. To force our governments to abandon support for this blockade will take mass action across Europe and North America. We can start with demonstrations on the 12 July, a day of action called by the Beirut Conference.
Stop the War fails Gaza
Britain’s powerful antiwar movement should lead such calls for action. Workers Power has raised this formally with Stop the War Coalition but received no answer yet. Indeed, when I approached Chris Nineham, an officer of StWC and a leader of the Socialist Workers Party, before the demonstration in Manchester on 24 June, and asked him what the coalition was doing about Gaza, he replied, “Nothing". When pressed further, he complained, “Many people are confused over Gaza.“
This simply will not do. It is the job of the antiwar movement to “unconfuse” people – as we did over the alleged “weapons of mass destruction” before the Iraq war.
This points to the false approach of the SWP to united fronts. Socialist Worker newspaper has come out clearly on the side of Gaza and Hamas against the Israeli/US/EU blockade. So why, given their enormous influence within StWC, and the likely sympathy of the Muslim community, is the SWP hesitant to get the movement to mobilise over Gaza? The truth is that they are afraid of divisions within StWC.
To speak plainly, it is not a question of people’s confusion; it is the politics of the SWP’s partners in StWC, the Communist Party of Britain. They side with Mahmoud Abbas and, therefore, would probably oppose breaking the Gaza blockade. The answer to these differences is not to hush them up but to confront the false arguments behind them. If a part of our movement is siding with imperialism and Zionism, it is time to expose it.
Unity against imperialism
The SWP will say this is divisive. But unity of inaction is the unity of the graveyard. That only 2,500 people demonstrated in Manchester is a warning. An antiwar movement that remains silent on the major issue of the day – the assault on Hamas and the Palestinian resistance – will not only fail to grow, it will shrivel. The overwhelming majority of activists would not be confused about taking mass action to break the blockade of Gaza. What they are waiting for is leadership.
But the SWP leadership has consistently refused to raise anti-imperialist slogans inside StWC:
“Attempts to narrow the campaign, so that it adopted specifically anti-imperialist objectives… were rejected.” (John Rees, Imperialism and resistance, p225)
Instead, Rees, Lindsey German and co. have sought unity with Liberal Democrats on a phased withdrawal from Iraq. They failed to alert activists to the fact that the Lib Dems wanted to send more troops to Afghanistan, i.e. that its “troops out” position was part of an imperialist policy to preserve army morale and bomb the Afghani people into submission.
Likewise, their call on Gordon Brown to change policy on Iraq may cause confusion and sow illusions in the Labour government. Brown is in fact likely to acknowledge failings in Iraq and implement a phased, partial withdrawal of British troops for the same reason as the Lib Dems. Brown could even use any good will arising from such action to launch an imperialist intervention into Darfur, albeit disguised in “humanitarian” clothing.
In short, by refusing to fight openly for anti-imperialist positions, the SWP has in fact steered StWC in the direction of supporting one wing of imperialism (Lib Dems, US Democrats) against another (Bush, Blair).
Of course, pacifists and others, who are not anti-imperialist, should not be excluded from the movement and activities. But, unless the anti-imperialists provide a clear lead, activists will be confused and potentially demobilised when the imperialists change policy in order to achieve their aims by another means. Which is why revolutionary communists continue to criticise their allies even while they remain in a united front with them.