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 US 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.