Starmer stands on the shoulders of bigots

New prime minister has already signaled a desire to deepen relations with Israel.

Keir Starmer, supporter of Zionism. (Simon Dawson/No 10 Downing Street)

---

Keir Starmer made himself abundantly clear when he said in 2020: “I support Zionism without qualification.”

His support for Israel and its state ideology does not appear to have diminished over the past four years.

Since becoming prime minister, Starmer has already voiced a commitment to deepening relations between Britain and Israel.

That commitment would be despicable at any time. Against the backdrop of the genocide being perpetrated in Gaza, it is completely unforgiveable.

Starmer’s support for Zionism undermines his own claims to be a progressive.

There is nothing progressive about Zionism.

By declaring his allegiance to that ideology, Keir Starmer is approving a project that was always reactionary in nature.

The Zionist project is aimed at dispossessing, driving out and even eliminating the indigenous people of Palestine so that European Jews can take their place.

Colonization was always abhorrent. It is a measure of Starmer’s immorality that he would give his blessing to a colonization project in the 21st century.

Starmer is, by no means, the first leading British politician to offer total support for Zionism.

More than 100 years ago, Arthur James Balfour said Zionist aspirations were “of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

The same Arthur James Balfour was foreign secretary in 1917, when he issued a declaration that Britain would sponsor the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. A “national home” was a euphemism for a state.

Balfour was a bigot.

He regarded Jews as an “alien” presence in Europe.

He described Black people as “less intellectually and morally capable” than whites.

In his earlier incarnation as chief secretary in Ireland, Balfour advocated being as “stern” towards the native population as Oliver Cromwell had been. For the Irish, Cromwell is synonymous with the massacres his forces carried out in Drogheda and Wexford during a 1649 invasion.

The stern measures authorized by Balfour included the violent suppression of a rent strike. Because of his policies and their lethal consequences, he earned the nickname Bloody Balfour.

Celebrating cruelty

The 1917 Balfour Declaration was incorporated in the League of Nations mandate under which Britain administered Palestine between the 1920s and the 1940s.

Britain used that period to push forward the Zionist colonization project by, among other things, enabling the large-scale eviction of Palestinians from land they had farmed and lived on for generations.

Understandably, the British experienced resistance from Palestinians.

In 1921, the British responded by declaring a state of emergency.

Winston Churchill, then the colonial secretary, proposed that a specialized police force be assembled for Palestine.

It would be comprised of men from the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries.

The Black and Tans were, in the words of the British lawyer and colonial administrator Norman Bentwich, a “celebrated” brigade “formed to crush the Irish rebels.”

It was intriguing for me to learn that a British establishment figure could describe the Black and Tans as “celebrated.”

I grew up in Balbriggan, a town about 20 miles north of Dublin.

The Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries set fire to numerous houses and other buildings in Balbriggan during the Irish War of Independence. Those buildings included the hosiery factory that was the main local employer.

While the British may have celebrated such acts, the people whose homes and livelihoods were destroyed certainly did not.

Raymond Cafferata was a member of the Black and Tans who later became a senior police officer in Palestine.

When a major revolt erupted during the 1930s, he wrote a letter to his wife, noting how the situation reminded him of Ireland.

“Everything is just kill, kill, kill,” he stated. “Innocent and guilty alike.”

The British were responsible for much of the killing.

Bernard Montgomery, a well-known British military commander, was stationed in Palestine during the 1930s.

He recommended a “shoot to kill” policy against all Palestinians viewed as rebels. In practice, the British frequently did not distinguish between so-called “rebels” and civilians.

In order to suppress the 1930s revolt, the British hired and trained members of the Haganah, the main Zionist militia in Palestine.

The Haganah was the forerunner of the present-day Israeli army.

By mentoring the Haganah, Britain therefore paved the way for the establishment of an army that is committing a holocaust in Gaza right at this very moment.

There is a perverse logic to how Keir Starmer has expressed a desire for deeper relations with Israel as it carries out a holocaust.

For more than a century, Britain has been formally dedicated to the colonization project which has led to the current horrors.

Despite some tensions along the way, Britain’s support for the Zionist movement has been remarkably consistent.

Keir Starmer stands on the shoulders of the bigots who entered Downing Street before him.

Keir Starmer is a typical British politician, so nobody should be surprised if he accommodates the slaughter of Palestinians.

•Talk given as part of Dlúthpháirtíocht: Irish Solidarity with Palestine, an exhibition at the P21 Gallery in London.