By Tom Fowdy
Yesterday the Trump Administration "designated Palestine Action… as a terrorist group" as part of what they have described as a "crackdown on left-wing groups in its counterterrorism efforts." In making the designation, the advocacy group is now on the same legal level as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and those associated with it will be banned from the country.
Although Palestine Action has been similarly banned as a "terrorist group" in the United Kingdom, albeit contested in the courts, Britain is arguably slowly being pulled in a completely different direction on the Israel-Palestine dispute. New Prime Minister Andy Burnham, representative of the "Soft Left," is seeking to heal the systemic division in the Labour Party caused by his predecessor Keir Starmer's, robust support of Israel and aggressive purging of Palestine advocacy from the party in the name of "Antisemitism."
Perceived support for Tel Aviv in Labor alienated Muslim communities and created a surge in support for Zack Polanski's Green Party, which Burnham now seeks to patch up. As a result, the new Prime Minister is posed to, as reported by the Telegraph, announce sanctions on trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank and even on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself. Netanyahu, seemingly emboldened to act with impunity due to Washington's backing, has vowed to aggressively expand settlements in the military occupied region, which crosses a red line for many countries.
After all, even despite the pro-Israel leanings of the previous British Premiership, Keir Starmer himself had also conceded to recognizing the State of Palestine in tandem with other countries in the Anglosphere and Europe. This was a turning point, and should they go ahead, the implementation of meaningful (even if carefully specific) sanctions will be another one. While we should never be foolish that Britain in its current incarnation will become overtly hostile to Israel, one thing is for sure: That there is a growing "Transatlantic rift" or even a rift with the rest of the world, between Britain and the United States concerning Israel, and the events of the past few years have produced changes which will not be reversible save significant concessions are made.
For all intents and purposes: Under the current administration of Benjamin Nentayahu, Israel is largely perceived in global public opinion as a "rogue state." As defined by the UN ESCWA website, a "rogue state" is a "a nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations." Typically, when one thinks of a "rogue state" you may think of North Korea, Iran, Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Qaddafi's Libya. The fact however that this label can be, arguably, said to refer to Israel is a testament to how much the world has changed, mainly because Israel's leadership has been accused of breaking multiple international laws and also crimes against humanity.
Of course, Israel is not an impoverished, totalitarian state like the way let's say, North Korea is, and this label may cause some offense. If we are to look at Israel's merits, on paper it has many: it is a democracy, it is prosperous and technologically advanced. However, this does not change the jury of public opinion who by and large deem Israel a pariah. The country benefits from clandestine and near unconditional backing from the United States which shields it from the worst fallout, yet for all intents and purposes Israel has arguably never been more disliked and isolated at the "grassroots" level at any point since the Cold War era. Even then, however, it is different, because there was no social media spectrum in those days to "expose" Tel-Aviv in the way we see happening today. Thus, even as most western countries seek to quietly support Israel, the growing pressure from public opinion is starting to translate into creeping policy changes which are more robustly enforcing red lines on certain issues.
For a long time, Britain and similar countries seemed to only refer to the two-state solution with lip service, as if it were "optional" in practice, yet these days it is becoming slightly more mandatory, and there is a growing sense of inevitability that the further Israel's government pushes into settling the occupied West Bank, the greater this diplomatic isolation will become. Attempts by governments, in both London and Washington, to criminalise the most extreme forms of pro-Palestine dissent will not make this problem go away. Thus, in the long run, America risks being increasingly morally implicated in support for what is deemed a "21st century South Africa" in terms of stigma.
In Britain, it has therefore become clear that at least on the left that political leaders will pay a price by ignoring the Palestine issue. In Washington, that sentiment is more suppressed as the full spectrum of the foreign policy and media establishment overwhelmingly support Israel, but even then, it is creeping up from the bottom. It will be an issue that lasts long after Netanyahu is gone, precisely because he is vesting his entire political will towards forcing outcomes which he knows if not secured now, will be reversible in the future, but the same goes for Israel's reputation too, and therein lies the problem. The old paradigm is over, and this will be a very difficult issue to solve.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | The US vastly overestimates its financial leverage in the current world
Opinion | Trump's 'Economic D-Day' for Iran is more like 'Don't have a clue' day
Comment