• Majority of Brits now support a permanent, immediate ceasefire, British foreign policy has become a dictatorship run mechanism.
• As the genocide in Gaza has the bloodiest phase looming in front of it, pro-Palestinian protests in the UK evolve from a phase of just marches to a phase of heightened concern.
After more than 30,000 people were massacred in Gaza, with the entirety of the Gaza strip in a state of starvation, and the whole of Northern Gaza cut off from any real aid, and with pictures circulating showing Israeli soldiers brutally torturing civilians, it became evident that Israel’s genocide has not been met with any real pressure to prevent it from continuing. From the recent US veto in the UN security council to block an immediate permanent ceasefire to the UK’s abstention in the same vote, along with the weapons both the US and UK have been continually providing Israel, it becomes evident that not only are the US and UK heavily complicit in this genocide but are also blind to the innate humane feelings of empathy towards the suffering in Gaza. More than 11,500 children have been killed in Gaza, and neither the UK nor the US feel the need to end the genocide, but rather only call for a temporary pause for geopolitical purposes.
UK policy towards Israel exposes the dictatorship system of the British democratic system
Less than two weeks ago, 250,000 people took to the streets of London near the Israeli embassy to call for a ceasefire, one of the largest protests in UK history.
Was it shocking? Not at all, as it was one of many protests taking place since the start of the genocide on October 7. Some of the biggest protests in UK history occurred after October 7 in support of the Palestinian cause, and a recent YouGov survey has shown that the majority of Brits are in favour of an immediate permanent ceasefire in Gaza yet, unsurprisingly, are prevented from having their voice acted upon by the politicians they have voted for. Even Labour, a group that is meant to be the opposition in parliament, challenging matters that the UK public disagrees with, has failed in every aspect of calling for an immediate ceasefire. Rather, last Wednesday, Labour tried to manipulate the public by amending a SNP motion that was calling for an immediate halt by adding a caveat that ‘Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of October 7 cannot happen again’. This caveat means that there will only be a call for an immediate ceasefire if Hamas stops fighting, or, in other words, lays down arms. This is something that the Labour Party knows Hamas will not do and has not shown any signs of doing. This is a huge testament to how Labour has tried to maliciously manipulate the language it has used in the echelons of power to pretend to call for an immediate ceasefire when it hasn’t. This has proven to us that both the Conservative government and the Labour opposition are complicit in genocide because of their silence in calling for an immediate ceasefire. The green light that western governments give only encourages and emboldens Israel while greying the red line when it comes to genocide.
UK parliament descended into chaos after a Labour amendment preventing an immediate ceasefire went forward without a vote last Wednesday
Protests have evolved as a result of government handicaps
On Saturday, London’s Tower Bridge, a landmark icon that has existed for more than 130 years, was blocked by Palestinian protesters for the first time with a banner attached to the bridge that read, ‘Palestine has the right to armed resistance’.
The banner did not call for a ceasefire, nor did it call for a two state solution. The banner may well be a sign that opinions on Israeli aggression have evolved from just a ceasefire to a right for Palestinians to defend themselves. This highlights the growing discontent the public is feeling about Israel’s actions. It’s likely that if this opinion were to have been perpetuated in early October, it would have been met with harsh backlash and a police rebuke, but this time it wasn’t. The anger of the British public is growing, and with it, the opinions of Israeli aggression are moulding rapidly. A testament to this anger is the change in the style of protests. At the very start of the genocide, marches were commonplace, and although pro-Palestinian marches have cost the Metropolitan Police more than £20 million, their disruption was limited to coordinated expectations and disappointments. However, recent protests have taken a different form. Only five days ago, a projection was displayed on Big Ben, another major London landmark. The projection said, ‘From the river to the sea. Palestine will be free’. This is in reference to the belief that all the land between the Jordan River and the Red Sea belongs to Palestine and is currently occupied. This is a belief that many Arab and Muslim states hold today and thus do not recognise Israel. A belief President Joe Biden would have held in his early youth, as he himself is older than Israel.
President Joe Biden at the age of 81 is older than the state of Isreal.
Downing Street, ministers, and groups fighting against antisemitism have all spoken out against this term when it was used for the Palestinian cause, but Prime Minister Netanyahu himself used the term to propagate his colonial agenda and drew no criticism from the same parties that condemned the Big Ben projection. Israel themselves have tweeted and condemned the term ‘From the river to the sea’. Even big figures like Elon Musk have tweeted against it, saying it ‘implies genocide’. Yet not a single one of these figures has condemned or even spoken about Netanyahu’s use of the same term in order to quite literally propagate the termination of any Palestinian state, which is directly an incitement to ethnic cleansing. This highlights the visualisation difference Western power players have when comparing Israelis and Palestinians, with the latter having a far less human image.
Netanyahu had himself used the term ‘From the River to the Sea’ to propagate his colonial ambitions for the remaining Palestinian territories.
The reality of ‘From the River to the Sea’ is a statement promoting freedom. The State of Israel is a state that has propagated genocide through its institutions, such as the media, schools, and political voices. It has never been right to enforce the creation of itself by destroying another, nor has it been right to allow that nation to continue to exist when its existence is still causing the same damage as it did in its creation. America was born in sin with its betrayal of indigenous American tribes and subsequent invasions. Yet today, the American genocidal mechanisms that led to its creation are not in effect against the indigenous Americans who are living in the region. Indigenous Americans are not calling for the freedom of their homeland, nor are there any who were alive before the creation of the American establishment. With Israel, however, there is a stark difference, as there are still many Palestinians across the globe who are older than the state of Israel, and even if not, Israel still isn’t recognised by a significant proportion of the world as the US is. The sin of Israel is still in effect, as the genocide in Gaza shows, with hundreds of thousands already displaced. If we take numbers into account within the land in between the river and the sea, we see that the number of Israelis and the number of Palestinians are relatively the same; however, if we consider the millions of Palestinian refugees scattered across the world, we find that Palestinians far outnumber the Israelis. This means that even from a secular point of view, the land between the river and the sea should indeed be ruled by the Palestinian people, and if held to a fair vote amongst indigenous Palestinians globally and Israeli citizens, we will find it’s inevitable that the Palestinians will win. Therefore, the term ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ is not an antisemitic statement but rather one of justice, both from a religious and secular lens.
