Your Party is in a severe crisis, which could be resolved either with a revival, or with a collapse. We in the Consistent Democrats will be publishing an analysis of this separately, but this article is about right-wing sectarian hysteria among some on the supposed ‘left wing’ of Your Party, which needs to be addressed. Two different strands (one a composite), of those who are trying to either build new organisations out of YP, or recruit to existing ones, have gone into paroxysms of denunciation of each other for either racism, or anti-democratic behaviour. The funny thing is that is does appear that both sides have a point about each other. The dead give-away about the racism and anti-democratic politics of both sides of this war of denunciation is that they keep dragging the name of the Consistent Democrats into their mutual denunciations. Even though we have had nothing to do with their fratricidal nonsense either way, simply because of being smeared and excluded before their mutual conflict began.
But they are obsessed with the CD group and try to drag us into this affair regardless. This is their way of trying to excuse basic violations of socialist principle, and in particular those of party and working-class democracy – the right of all bona-fide tendencies in the working-class movement to freely argue for their views in working class parties and forums. Both sides have instead indulged in libels against our comrades that echo the degeneracy of the Moscow Purge Trials, where Trotskyists were branded as both police agents and supporters of Nazism. We have been disgustingly smeared as akin to supporters of Nazism with complete cynicism by both sides of this dispute, by the device of their trying to equate our analysis of Zionism with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This was the forged Tsarist document that purported to be a record of meetings of Jewish elders, and claimed that Jews of all classes, from Communists to capitalists, were involved in a worldwide conspiracy to take over the world and institute a reign of tyranny over non-Jews. This document was actually a malicious, racist caricature of the early Zionist movement, which organised international conferences under the aegis of the Zionist Organisation, founded in 1897. Not for the purpose of ‘ruling the world’, but of organising for, and lobbying to remove obstacles to, the Jewish colonisation of Palestine, which had already commenced in the 1880s.
That was its main purpose. At the time this movement emerged, Zionism was one strand of emerging imperialism. Racial anti-Semitism was another that appeared at about the same time. As it turned out, both had aspirations that ultimately proved genocidal. To elaborate the full unfolding of both would require writing a Marxist history of the 20th Century and the first quarter of the 21st, which is way beyond the scope of this article. But the equation of our analysis of Zionism with the Protocols is an outrageous, pro-Zionist variant of a smear technique that began with Stalinism. Charlatan ‘logic’ in order to try to create a spurious resemblance between left-wing criticism of a phenomenon, and Nazism. The mythical collaboration of Jewish communists with Jewish capitalists to supposedly enslave the rest of humanity, is equated with the (easily demonstrable) collaboration of Jewish-Zionist bourgeois across national lines to oppress, dispossess and now exterminate, the Palestinian people.
What is lost on them is that the forces they are defending, lobbying movements led by the Jewish-Zionist super-rich, primarily in North America and Western Europe, are actually an extension of the Israeli ruling class. The prime movers in the holocaust that the Israeli state is carrying out right now, in the Palestinian territories (not just Gaza) and Lebanon. They have support from other bourgeois trends today: some Evangelical Christians, some kinds of conservative bourgeois, bourgeois liberals, bourgeois Greens and social democrats. At bottom these trends are all pro-capitalist and regard the Jewish bourgeoisie as a kind of watchdog for the future of capitalism itself. They are very appreciative of what they see as the pivotal role of such ideologues as Milton Friedman, Keith Joseph, Henry Kissinger, Alfred Sherman and more in popularising neoliberalism in a major capitalist crisis in the 1970s. These Zionist forces have been mobilising for decades since, intervening in Western politics to suppress opposition to Israeli crimes, and now to Israel’s outright genocide. Part of the left defends them against Marxist criticism, out of a mixture of communal prejudice and liberal guilt, both standpoints that are alien to socialism. The Western left has conspicuously failed to properly address this issue. This outbreak of witchhunting highlights once again that this is no accident.
My exclusion from the All-London District Assembly’s (ALDA) online Discussion forum, for arguing the agreed politics of the Consistent Democrats, was the first breach of a principle that the left wing of Your Party proclaimed right from the beginning of the project, under the inspiration of Zarah Sultana’s call for an anti-NATO, anti-Zionist, class war ‘party of the whole left’. The only legitimate grounds for political exclusions of ostensibly left-wing trends and groupings are basic programmatic principles. In most cases, it should be sufficient for the party to adopt firm principles on for instance, opposition to NATO, to tend to exclude NATO supporters from it. The only exception to that is Zionists, for the obvious reason that Zionists have a very visible policy of infiltrating pretty much every political party today to set up pro-Zionist factions within them.
Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel, Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, the newly founded Reform Friends of Israel, and the fight going on in the Greens, clearly demonstrate the point. The latter is against what now call themselves the Jewish Greens (in reality a faction similar to the others mentioned) who have already been purging left-wing people from the Greens (including well known Jewish leftist Tony Greenstein, expelled for so-called ‘historic’ anti-Semitism). It underlines the correctness of the motion I moved to the Members Charter (MC) pre-conference on 31st May, originally to be seconded by Paul Collins, that called for “freedom of criticism, unity in action” as the basis for whatever came out of it, with the exception of the explicit proscription of Zionist currents. We do not want or need a Your Party Friends of Israel!
The misleaders who ran that conference showed their real attitude to Zionism and anti-Zionism when that proposal was voted down, and they instead excluded me for so-called anti-Semitism. That is, for analysing in Marxist terms the Jewish-Zionist bourgeoisie in Israel and its diaspora extensions as the driving force behind the oppression and genocide of Palestinians. Which ought to be obvious to anyone not blinded by communal bigotry or guilty-liberal brain-rot. The primary role of Jewish-Zionist political forces in witchhunting Corbyn and driving the persecution of opponents of Zionist genocide in the UK is no secret. The Members Charter on 31st May constituted itself as the Socialist Federation (SF). Then I was again excluded from the pre-Conference of SF on 30th June at the last minute by the executive action of Richard Gerard, after having been invited via Facebook to the event, and receiving confirmations and access to the full set of motions.
Marxism in the Age of the Zionist State: Some Pointers
The anti-Zionist and anti-NATO programmatic points in the basic declarations of the MC/SF were moved, to their credit, by the Spartacist League/Britain (SL/B), and it is obvious that, unlike the organisers, they are serious about these positions. The SL/B comrades also opposed my exclusion, and comrade Eibhlin McDonald was bureaucratically muted by the chair when she tried to protest it during the discussions, as were CD, Posadist and other comrades. The organisers of the conferences fear their exclusions, and our politics, being discussed, which is why they refused to hold any hearing, allow any discussions, or votes on these exclusions by ordinary attendees at these conferences. The new Spartacists, along with Marie of the Posadists, who we work with closely, opposed our exclusion on a fully principled basis. Those involved in the exclusions have shown that their anti-Zionism, as well as their claim to be in favour of party and working-class democracy, is a mere posture.
Not only the Socialist Federation leaders, but also those who attempted to found the Socialist Education and Discussion Association (SEDA) have shown themselves to be pro-Zionist, liberal hypocrites. The latter body was founded by former Spartacist League cadres Alex Green and Tony Collins, who appear to have been mostly out of active politics since the 1990s, though Collins has made a career as an academic specialising mainly in the history of sport. It should be noted that today’s Spartacist League and International Communist League (their international current) moved substantially to the left on the question of Zionism, from origins in the old version of the Spartacists led by James Robertson, who died in 2019 aged 90.
Robertson, for most of his long political career in the later period of which he claimed that the tendency that he led was the sole surviving repository of genuine Trotskyism, was in crucial respects a semi-unreconstructed Shachtmanite. This refers to the split away from the Trotskyist movement in the United States (which was particularly prominent and worked closely with Trotsky) in 1940 of a current led (mainly) by Max Shachtman, who in 1928 had been one of the founders of the Trotskyist movement in the US. By 1940 Shachtman and his followers rejected the most basic position of the Trotskyist movement: defence of the Soviet Union, as a degenerated workers state, against imperialism and counterrevolution. Robertson as a young person joined Shachtman’s movement at the end of WWII. In 1956 he, Shane Mage and Tim Wohlforth, leading youth cadre of Shachtman’s Independent Socialist League, rejected Shachtman’s break from Trotskyism over the Russian question and led a grouping that joined the Socialist Workers Party (United States), which was still the orthodox Trotskyist organisation in the US.
At the end of the 1950s, the US Socialist Workers Party moved away from the Trotskyist orthodoxy it had previously (more or less) maintained since Trotsky’s assassination in 1940. It embraced not only the defence of the Cuban revolution, but also the politics of cheerleading for Castro, Guevara etc, which were a form of leftist nationalism. The Castroists tended to embrace the Stalinist vision of “socialism in one country” but not the world-revolutionary programme and outlook of Bolshevism. The SWP claimed that the Castroists were ‘unconscious Trotskyists’. What the SWP and its somewhat ageing cadre were doing is abandoning Trotskyism in favour of a centrism that cheered for such forces.
The Revolutionary Tendency in the SWP, led by Robertson, Mage and Wohlforth, developed the position that Cuba was becoming a deformed workers state, then similar to China,North Vietnam, Albania and Yugoslavia. These states had been created by Stalinist guerrilla forces. In the context of huge crises when the weak bourgeoisies of those countries were compromised by involvement either with Nazism or similarly brutal forms of colonialism, these guerrilla forces were put in a position where (as they saw it) the only way to create a functioning society was to expropriate those bourgeoisies and establish states that were qualitatively similar to the degenerated USSR under Stalinism. In Cuba, something similar happened, except that the July 26th Movement, led by Fidel and Raul Castro, and Che Guevara, was a left-nationalist, not a Stalinist organisation. It only fused with the Stalinist Popular Socialist Party (PSP) of Carlos Rafael Rodriguez years later, after the bourgeoisie had been expropriated. This threw some serious light on how such deformed workers states had been created in the crisis-ridden aftermath of WWII, in the context of the USSR’s victory over Nazi Germany.
Robertson became the main leader of the Revolutionary Tendency, which became the Spartacist League/US in 1966. One significant loss was that of Wohlforth, who authored the RT’s original document on Cuba, but renounced its correct view in order to align with Gerry Healy’s tendency in Britain. The Healy group was unable to deal with the complexities of Cuba and ended up defending a position that Cuba was still capitalist – a flat-out denial of reality. Flatly denying reality has become an important, and very damaging and discrediting, reflex on the Trotskyist left when it comes to crucial contemporary issues, like the power of Israel in the Western counties, as we shall explore later. Irrespective of that, Robertson’s small tendency analysed the Cuban revolution correctly, and developed a position on the complexities of post-war Stalinism that was both coherent theoretically and genuinely Trotskyist.
But on other questions that were crucial, Robertson’s politics were not Trotskyist and were badly wrong. Robertson came from Shachtman’s organisation, which as well as being fundamentally wrong on the USSR and its derivatives, took a pro-Zionist position after the Second World War, and supported the forces of the Yishuv, the proto-Israel, in the 1948 war. A famous exposition of the Shachtmanite position was a 1948 Hal Draper article, whose title “How to Defend Israel: A Political Program for Israeli Socialists”, speaks for itself. Much of it consists of angry denunciation of the US SWP for not taking sides, and particularly Israel’s side, in the 1948 war which resulted in the expulsion from their homeland of three quarters of the native Arab population of Palestine – the Nakba (catastrophe). This one crucial question that Robertson’s Revolutionary Tendency did not address came to cause it major political problems later on, and made a mockery of their otherwise strong claim to represent a uniquely Trotskyist tendency in the post WWII period. See (https://www.connexions.org/CxArchive/MIA/draper/1948/07/israel.htm) for Draper’s piece. Draper as a supposedly ‘Marxist’ thinker plays an important role in the politics of both the Alliance for Workers Liberty, and the CPGB/Weekly Worker, both of which also play a role in the issues discussed below.
So, the Spartacist League was founded in 1966 with a correct and theoretically coherent position on Cuba and Post WWII Stalinism. But then they were confronted with the June 1967 war between Israel and surrounding semi-colonial Arab nations: Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. The Israeli attack meant that the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Syria’s Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula were occupied by the aggressive, advanced capitalist Israeli state. The position that the Spartacists came up with was one of ‘defeatism on both sides’ between this imperialist monstrosity and its semi-colonial victims, with some lip service to supporting ‘independent’ struggles of Palestinians. But also significantly, they retrospectively endorsed the Shachtmanite position on the 1948 war, of backing Israel, on the supposed ground that the settler Jewish population at the time were threatened with destruction by the Arab armies (see https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/spartacist-us/1964-1971/011_03-04-1968.pdf, p4). Which misses the point that this settler movement were responsible for the expulsion of three quarters of the Palestinian people from their homeland, which was the beginning of the crime that, by a completely logical progression, led to today’s genocide of the Palestinians.
This was because Robertson had not broken from Shachtman’s politics on this crucial question. They did in fact come under pressure from others on the left over this appalling position, and in 1973 they changed it, to retrospectively endorse the position of the US SWP on the 1948 war (see https://www.internationalist.org/birth-of-the-zionist-state-pt2-7405.html). The SWP took a neutral stance between the forces of the Yishuv (proto-Israel) and the Arab armies. The Spartacists claimed that adopting the SWP’s position on 1948 amounted to embracing a correct Marxist position on this issue. But if that was the case, one wonders why it took them so long? In reality, the SWP’s neutral position on 1948 was itself a capitulation to the manner which the Zionists utilised the genocide of Jews in Europe, to try to justify Jewish-Zionist settlers seizing Arab land as part of a new imperialist project, and expelling the indigenous population. The Shachtmanites, supremely malicious about this, taunted the SWP about this capitulation at the time. Draper plays devil’s advocate in this passage, and keeps citing the SWP:
“But don’t the Jewish people have ‘the right to self determination and statehood as other peoples?’ Their full answer:
‘Yes – but even if we abstract this question from its aforementioned social reality, the fact remains they cannot carve out a state at the expense of the national rights of the Arab peoples. This is not self-determination, but conquest of another people’s territory.’
“A dishonest reply. (1) It means that the Jews have a right to self-determination but no right to exercise it. This does not make sense. One may, as we said, advise against its exercise in favour of a different course; but it is pure fakery to grant the right and in the same breath denounce its exercise as ‘conquest of another people’s territory.’ (2) If the Jews have the right to self-determination, what territory can they ‘self-determine themselves’ in without infringing upon the national rights of the Arab people? Is there any? Obviously none, it appears from the argument. What then does the ‘Yes’ mean?
“The only honest answer would be to deny that the Jews have any right to self-determination in Palestine – and to explain why they thus differ from other peoples. The SWP cannot do the latter and so they wisely, if hypocritically, refrain from asserting the former.
“If the setting up of the Jewish state was ‘conquest of another people’s territory’ and an attack on the ‘national rights’ of the Arab peoples, there can be only one conclusion: it is the Arab peoples, then, who have the right to defend themselves against this unprovoked aggression. How can this conclusion be avoided? Certainly not by arguing that the leaders of these (attacked) Arab peoples are no-goods! Yet this is exactly how our subjects evade the responsibility of coming out four-square for the Arab invasion:
‘They [the Arab rulers), are, by their anti-Jewish war, [what? isn’t it a war of defence against an unprovoked attempt at conquest? – H.D.] trying to divert the struggle against imperialism, and utilizing the aspirations of the Arab masses for national freedom, to smother the social opposition to their tyrannical rule.’
“Of course, of course – but in a war of defence against conquest by ‘tools of American imperialism,’ it would be the duty of socialists to fight the Arab rulers by demanding, not merely prosecution of the war, but consistent, uncompromising prosecution of the war … opposition to a rotten compromise with the Israelis, for example, opposition to any cessation of the conflict short of complete reconquest of the whole territory of Palestine, war to the bitter end … just as our Chinese comrades advocated, as against the compromising bourgeois leaders, in the war against Japan.
“Our subjects shrink from this conclusion, for unaccountable reasons. This, however, is the only consistent alternative to our own consistent policy.” (ibid)
From this passage, both the SWP and the Shachtmanites seem to agree that Jewish-Zionist colonial movement trying to take control of Palestine represented a bona-fide ‘nation’. A position that seems to be derived from some of Trotsky’s fragmentary writings from the late 1930s when he referred to Jews generally as ‘the Jewish nation’ – even though admitting that “the nation cannot normally exist without a common territory” (Leon Trotsky on the Jewish Question, Pathfinder pamphlet, p20). It is necessary therefore to briefly digress to address this point. Trotsky admitted in the writings reproduced in that pamphlet, that he had previously had little interest in the Jewish question and little knowledge of it:
“I have lived my whole life outside of Jewish circles. I have always worked in the Russian workers movement. My native tongue is Russian. Unfortunately, I have not even learned to read Jewish. The Jewish question therefore has never occupied the centre of my attention” (ibid, p28).
Unfortunately, Trotsky’s lack of attention to the Jewish question shows here in this blinkered approach, which was hardly in tune with classical Marxism. Far from regarding Jews as a nation, Marx, who was also Jewish, referred to “the chimerical nationality of the Jew” in The Jewish Question (1844). Lenin, in The Position of the Bund in the Party (1903), wrote that “the Bund’s … argument, which invokes the idea of a Jewish nation, is undoubtedly of the nature of a principle. Unfortunately, however, this Zionist idea is absolutely false and essentially reactionary” (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/oct/22a.htm). And Abram Leon, likewise, rejects the idea that Zionism constitutes a real national movement: “Whereas the national movement is the product of the ascending period of capitalism, Zionism is the product of the imperialist era.” (Leon, The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation (1942), p241) and also repeatedly refers to Jews as a “nationality”, not a “nation”, e.g.: “But the development of history is dialectical. At the same time that the bases for a new Jewish nationality were being elaborated, all the conditions were likewise being created for its disappearance” (ibid, p215). These classical Marxists all studied the Jewish question in depth, unlike Trotsky, who was understandably preoccupied by other matters. But this weakness laid the basis for a serious fault in the movement that he led, that fully emerged after his death.
To continue, … for “unaccountable reasons”, says Draper coyly, in the passage from his How to Defend Israel… (quoted above) the SWP flinched from applying a consistently democratic, anti-imperialist, anti-colonial position to the struggle of the Arab peoples of the Middle East against Zionist colonisation, dispossession and subjugation. But Draper knew full well that the reasons were not ‘unaccountable’ at all. The historical context was the genocide of the Jews in Europe by Hitler’s forces, and as a Jewish-Zionist chauvinist himself, Draper considered these circumstances fully entitled Jewish colonists from Europe to take Arab land by force. That migrant population came as armed settlers, not as refugees, as the Zionist movement were fully aware. Right from the start Zionists lobbied, in the US for instance, to limit the number of Jewish refugees who would be admitted to that country in order that they be funnelled to Palestine to act as a battering ram against the Palestinians. Their concept right from the beginning of the Zionist movement was that the Arab population would have to be relieved of their country.
That has been the Zionist patter since those days – that the genocide of the Jews in Europe fully entitled Jewish-Zionist settlers to become oppressors of the Palestinian people, and to bring to its logical conclusion what was always conceived of as a genocidal, imperialist Jewish state in West Asia. Draper had no real qualms about that, though he did try to put forward a Bowdlerised version of a ‘socialist’ programme, along the lines of “not Jew against Arab, but a war of classes” (ibid), and a series of stilted demands that claimed to embody that perspective at the end of the piece.
It should be noted that (abuse of) the Nazi genocide has become the standard excuse for Zionist crimes in West Asia, and is the basis of the implicit allegation of ‘anti-Semitism’ and Nazi sympathies against those who defend basic anti-imperialist and anti-colonial principle, and note the genocidal logic of Zionism. This has produced a Nazi-baiting smear ethos and lie machine that rivals that of Stalin in the Moscow purge trials of 1936-39, and was obviously copied from there. It has echoed right down, to the present-day and recent past. For instance, with the Labour-Zionist thug John Mann’s outrageous street harassment of Ken Livingstone at the beginning of the Zionist campaign against Corbyn’s Labour leadership in 2016. Or the decades of bilious hatred since the mid-1980s of supposed ‘anti-Semitism’ on the anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist left from the born-again Shachtmanite Alliance for Workers Liberty.
The style is distinctly Stalinist, but the political content is actually worse, because Political Zionism – the project of building a Jewish state on land inhabited for millennia by Palestinian Arabs – has always been a genocidal project in its real logic. The ‘Nazi’ smears that come out of these people’s mouths have thus always been about projecting their genocidal aspirations onto their critics. This exploitation of a previous genocide has even tarnished the memory of that genocide itself in the West Asia region, and given birth to a significant degree of mistaken scepticism about that event’s historical truth. The (ab)use of one crime to justify another tends to have that effect, and the responsibility lies purely with the Zionists. This is a comprehensible mistake made by many from the West Asia region, or immersed in its politics. There are some notable cases such as famed Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser, the former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Musician and philosophical writer Gilad Atzmon, who on many other matters writes powerfully. We consider this erroneous, and argue against it, but we do not go along with what we consider to be Zionist vilification of such figures as ‘anti-Semitic’.
The US SWP did not dare to object to the proposition that the genocide of the Jews in Europe entitled Jewish colonists from Europe (mainly) to take Arab land by force, in fear of being smeared as ‘anti-Semitic’ for defending basic anti-imperialist, anti-colonial principles. That smear is implicit in Draper’s polemic cited above. And indeed, that (implicit – in that article at least!) smear is the mother and father of all the ‘anti-Semitism’ smears by pro-Zionist fakers on the ‘left’ against anyone who takes the side of Zionism’s Arab victims. It is the starting point of the exploitation of the Nazi genocide to excuse and condone Zionist crimes that has echoed down through the decades with accelerating bourgeois support. The underlying concept is that Jews, as an ethnic group, because of the Nazi genocide, have acquired special attributes of being both progressive and eternal victims, and special rights to oppress others. By this logic, treating Jews as equal and applying the same criteria when analysing their social and political divisions, and actions, as to any other population, amounts to ‘anti-Semitism’.
Some on the left have sometimes resisted this since, some have capitulated to it, some have done both at different times. Anyone who consistently opposes it has to swim against a tide of left-Zionist and related Ziophile slander about supposed ‘anti-Semitism’. The US SWP’s ‘neutral’ position on the 1948 war thus had a capitulation to Zionism built into it right from the start. And even as the old Spartacists retreated from endorsing the Shachtmanites’ openly pro-Zionist position on 1948, the position they embraced in 1973, both about 1948 and about 1967 and 1973 was also therefore a capitulation to Zionism.
Similar rhetoric to Draper’s, like “Not Jew Against Arab but class against class” frequently occurred in post-1973 old Spartacist material on the Arab-Israeli question. Deluding themselves that they had stumbled on a uniquely Trotskyist approach, they also extended this approach to Ireland and formulated a position on Ireland in the 1970s that gave the Protestant population of the North-Eastern 6 Counties a veto on Irish self-determination. This was a capitulation to Loyalism and British imperialism, summarised with the Draper-like slogan “Not Green against Orange but Class Against Class”. Since 2021, the Spartacists have renounced these positions and embraced basic positions on Ireland and Palestine that are compatible with classical Leninism and Trotskyism. Though these errors still appear in the material of Robertson’s ‘critical’ inheritors, such as the different wings of the Bolshevik Tendency/International Bolshevik Tendency, and the Internationalist Group, to this day.
Another irony is that the Healyite Socialist Labour League, who denied the Cuban revolution had produced a deformed workers state, nevertheless had a broadly correct position on the 1967 and 1973 wars, siding with the semi-colonial Arab states against Israel. This also was true of the (then) more left-wing European Mandelite European majority of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International and its British section from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, the International Marxist Group (IMG). That was many years before their capitulation to imperialist anti-Sovietism in the 1980s and 1990s. Such as continuing to support Solidarność in Poland despite this initially genuine trade union rapidly developing a neoliberal, capitalist restorationist thrust; cheering for the ‘Popular Fronts’ in the Baltic states including those who praised the Nazi ‘Forest Brothers’ in Estonia; then cheering on Boris Yeltsin in the capitalist-restorationist seizure of power after the last-gasp Stalinist August coup in 1991. This was the gateway drug to them capitulating to imperialism more and more, supporting imperialism’s proxy wars against Russia in Ukraine and also its arming of ‘White Helmets’ and the like in Syria, supporting the imperialist invasion of Libya in 2011 etc. For today’s British USFI group, Anti-Capitalist Resistance, witchhunting genuine anti-Zionists is logically in tune with this other treachery. Including when they help organise jingo ‘Ukraine Solidarity’ demonstrations outside Stop the War Coalition international events denouncing STW for not supporting NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine. They have come a long way since the IMG. Like much of the left in the intervening decades, they have massively regressed.
