The Green Party’s “Zionism is Racism” motion has caused an absolute firestorm both in Westminster and in the press. For a non-binding resolution from a minor insurgent political party, it is astounding how many people, both within and without the UK have been queuing up to issue their condemnations. It has been condemned by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Chief Rabbi and so on and so on; Labour have even gone as far as to say they would end power-sharing deals with Green councils. Clearly, the resolution has touched a nerve, the hissy fit in Parliament and the press we’ve all observed over the past few days shows that the non-binding motion is not as impotent as it first appears.
The motion has predictably been charged with many crimes; the oversimplification of a complex issue, antisemitism, and that it risked alienating Jewish members who had varying, complicated, and personal definitions and relationships with Zionism. The motion—so the argument goes—risks alienating potential allies who would otherwise form a part of the Greens’ pro-Palestinian movement and therefore could result in a smaller and less impactful movement. This final argument potentially holds the position as the most novel and convincing point put against the motion. It is also nonsense.
Zionism, like any other ideology, ought to be understood and defined by a combination of its theory and its practice, both of which are undeniably racist. It’s impossible for an ideology which necessitates the dispossession of an indigenous population for the benefit of another group not be racist. It is also impossible to implement that ideology (the creation of a majority Jewish state in a land with a Jewish minority) without the massacre, ethnic cleansing, and continued abuse of the indigenous population.
This doesn’t quite wash with the proponents of this argument. For them, Zionism is special (why? Who knows?) and therefore unlike every other ideology cannot be assessed in this manner. If anything, Zionism is more akin to a Rorschach test than an ideology. Each person has their own interpretation and each interpretation is “valid,” as long as it is vague, vapid, meaningless, incoherent, and completely detached from reality.
This interpretative freedom is never afforded to other ideologies, or to Palestinians. It’s remarkable how many people I’ve seen on the likes of Sky News, Channel 4, and the BBC opine about what different things Zionism might mean to different people and how the Greens’ (accurate) definition could cause distress, and not one of them has been Palestinian. Whilst remarkable, it is also unsurprising. Hearing someone talk about their experience of Zionism as the ethnic cleansing and genocide of their people, the murder of their friends and family members, and the torture of their compatriots might make the other guests’ discussions of their emotional attachment and unique understanding of Zionism appear to be insignificant and in poor taste.
Theory and ideology do not just speak in abstract terms regarding goals but also about the achievement of that goal. Marxist-Leninism is not just concerned with the establishment of a communist society but also with how that society will be achieved. Similarly, Zionism is not simply concerned with “Jewish self-determination,” as warm and fluffy as that sounds, but also with the concrete reality of the racist brutality required to achieve that in a land that belongs to someone else. There has never been a coherent non-racist Zionist political ideology, and any claim to one is simply an obscuration that only functions to cover for what Zionism really is, both in theory and in practice.
It’s clear that the motion will alienate some people and that’s not a bad thing. A clear line has been drawn between those allied to the movement and those that are not. It has exposed those whose claims to pro-Palestinian credibility are just that, claims. Building a popular movement should not be conflated with welcoming anyone without considering their goals and beliefs. If the goal is the liberation of Palestinians, something impossible under Zionism, then why should we be so concerned with losing those who, even three years into a genocide still hold (or worry for those that do) an emotional connection to the ideology and state that has perpetrated it? Can we seriously believe that they would be fully aligned with this goal? Can we seriously expect an anti-Zionist political project to be undistorted when composed, in part, by people clearly emotionally invested in Zionism?
It’s good that a line was drawn and people had to decide where they stand. Preventing the watering-down of positions and abandonment of goals that threaten Israel more deeply is worth the loss of some members that would have been upset by this. I’m sorry to see anyone go for that reason — not because all should be welcome in a movement, but because the motion has forced them to reveal something thoroughly disagreeable about themselves.
Image by Michael Lake for The Student
