From Iraq to Gaza: The great disconnect between British people and rulers

By David Miller

The visit of US President George W. Bush to the UK in November 2003 was a moment of significance in British history, as demonstrations against it revealed massive public outrage over the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Iraq became the most important reason why the British public grew increasingly disaffected with the Tony Blair government and, indeed, with the country’s electoral politics altogether.

What we saw then were the first signs of the exhaustion of liberal democratic politics.

In the intervening years, there was a last hurrah for the idea that change could come from the ballot box, most notably with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party.

But Corbyn’s defeat and the slow realization that his replacement, Keir Starmer—though promising to retain many of Corbyn’s radical policies—was actually engaged in a calculated deception.

When Starmer first said, “I support Zionism without qualification” during the leadership election in 2020, many left-wing voters tried to convince themselves that he didn’t really mean it, that he was merely saying it for electoral reasons.

However, as the genocide in Gaza has paraded horror after horror, live-streamed to millions across the world, Starmer is on course to becoming the most hated British prime minister ever.

By last month, he was as unpopular as the far-right leader Nigel Farage.

How Did We Get Here?

Toppling Bush

The historic demonstration against Bush and his illegal invasion of Iraq took place in London on November 21, 2003. It was a weekday, and a massive protest greeted the US president upon his arrival in the British capital city.

Demonstrators toppled a five-meter-high statue of Bush in Trafalgar Square, directly reenacting the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue by US operatives in Firdoz Square, Baghdad, on April 9 of that year.

That was followed by Bush’s famous "Mission Accomplished" speech on May 1. But hardly anyone believed the lie.

Public opinion was overwhelmingly skeptical about the Iraq military adventure, even though, at this stage, the US had not yet called off its pathetic performative “search” for the “missing” Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). As everyone already knew, they did not exist.

The police claimed there were around 110,000 protestors but the organizers put the number at over 200,000. It was by all accounts the largest mid-week demonstration for a very long time, or possibly ever.

Both Bush and Blair – his name featuring as ‘Bliar’ on thousands of placards – were unable to shake off the stain of the lies, death and destruction in Iraq.  Blair was unpopular before the Iraq adventure.

The deeply loathed Conservatives had been in power in the UK since 1979. Blair was elected on a wave of popular anticipation for progressive change.

However, by 2001, millions were so demoralized that they did not vote. The election turnout in 2001 was the lowest since the full introduction of universal suffrage in 1928, at just 59.4 percent.

With progressive hopes in the Blair government dashed on the rocks of the disastrous Iraq War, Labour was punished electorally.

In Scotland, the second election for the Scottish Parliament saw 13 anti-war MSPs elected—six from the Scottish Socialist Party and seven Greens.

With the Scottish National Party (SNP) also opposed to the war, this became a touchstone that led, more or less inexorably, to the independence referendum in 2014, which independence campaigners lost narrowly.

Marginally more voters turned out for the 2005 General Election (61.4 percent), but it was still the second-lowest turnout since 1928.

Academic and journalistic commentators fell over themselves to pin the blame for voter apathy on the culture of political spin, the role of the supposedly adversarial media, or, more commonly, the supposed stupidity or spitefulness of the public.

As I noted at the time (at an event held just two weeks before Bush arrived), this was a matter of “system failure,” in which the horror inflicted by Bush and Blair on Iraq loomed large.

Starmer’s unpopularity

Fast forward to the 2024 General Election, and we find that the record set by Blair in 2001 has now been smashed by Starmer. Reportedly, only 52 percent of voters turned out for the poll in May this year.

The circumstances are similar: public hatred of a long-running and vicious Tory government.

But, perhaps the disillusionment is even worse after millions turned out in 2017 and 2019 in an attempt to elect an apparently genuine alternative in the Corbyn-led Labour Party.

By 2024, disillusionment with the systemic failure of British democracy returned. This time, the ongoing genocide in Palestine loomed larger than it had in 2005.

Back then, the Liberal Democrats received historic support in part because of their apparent skepticism about Iraq, and one anti-war MP, George Galloway, was elected.

In 2024, some five anti-genocide candidates were elected, despite an implacably anti-democratic electoral system and various attempts by the Labour Party to sabotage independent candidates.

Mass demonstrations against the genocide have continued for more than a year and are unlikely to cease. They remain vital.

Lindsey German, a leading figure in the UK Stop the War Coalition since its founding after the events of 9/11, is right to object to those who disdainfully dismiss marching “from A to B.”

Demonstrations are an important display of the volume and strength of public sentiment. They reclaim the hegemony of public space from Zionists, strengthen the resolve of those capable of making a material (particularly kinetic) difference to the war, and show Palestinians that their cause is both popular and universal, at the forefront of people’s minds irrespective of race, religion, and nationality.

In the first months of the ongoing genocide, which has already claimed nearly 44,000 lives, even Arab states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia were forced to react to the sight of millions of Europeans and Americans demonstrating in support of Palestinian resistance by publicly pretending to assist in achieving a ceasefire.

These Arab states, who rule in the interests of their own families (aided by the US empire), are more responsive to and respectful of white Europeans than they are to their own people.

However, demonstrations have for too long helped to limit anti-Zionist action. They are organized and monopolized by those who appear reluctant—or perhaps incapable—of offering serious political education.

These include liberals (and even leftists) who are terrified of the “Z-word.” They have built a movement with great breadth but little depth.

The Muslim “threat”

Meanwhile, ideas about the threat to the collective West from Islam and Muslims—expressed in terms like “Muslim extremism” or “Islamic terrorism” and exemplified by the creation of the word “Islamist” to refer to all Muslims who do or are imagined to take political inspiration from their faith—emerged in the West under the guiding hand of Zionists beginning in the 1980s.

These ideas received new impetus after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

This was partly due to the attacks themselves and partly due to the massive reaction to them, seen in the creation of the global anti-war movement opposing the invasion of Iraq.

The fact that Muslims played a leading role in this movement and formed a historic alliance with the left profoundly shocked the British security state.

In response, they did all they could to undermine the movement, specifically by infiltrating, co-opting, bullying, and attempting to pacify the Muslim community.

This process was accompanied by an increasing willingness on the part of the British security apparatus to work directly with the Zionist regime.

This included taking direction from and collaborating with the regime to target Muslim charities. The most significant target was Interpal, a charity that was ultimately destroyed after years of attacks.

Also, the British state itself invested heavily in directly funding Zionist groups, most of which (possibly all) work in direct or indirect coordination with the regime in occupied Palestine.

Today the state is better insulated against the movement and better able to contain and ignore the pro-Palestine movement. In part this is the result of their earlier experience and in part because they have had some success in penetrating and subverting the movement itself as well as pacifying the Muslim community with a vast array of repressive measures, including via the Prevent programme, the penetration and surveillance of mosques, as well as via their repertoire of subversion and infiltration tactics, such as the sponsorship of Zionist interfaith activities.

One example of such collaboration is the Board of Deputies of British Jews’ campaign, Nisa-Nashim.

Radical movements against genocide

Nevertheless, they face a significant problem as the movement becomes increasingly radical. This is despite the decreasingly radical stance of major organizations such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Stop the War Coalition.

People are less willing to avoid using the term “Zionism” or refrain from pointing out that international law grants Palestinians the right to resist occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.

The inability—or unwillingness—of activists to remain silent on this matter has led the state to increasingly target the movement with the twin weapons of alleged “antisemitism” and through the use of terrorism legislation.

It is not true, however, that the British state has never used terrorism legislation against protesters or journalists in the past.

Terrorism legislation and activism

I have personally been involved in several cases as an expert witness for solicitors working on behalf of defendants accused of absurd “crimes” under terrorism legislation.

This includes a case where the defendant was falsely accused of giving support to terrorism by possessing the Anarchist Cookbook. This is a controversial volume that, however, is still freely available from Amazon.com, including an e-version from $8.99.

In another case, a UK master’s student, Rizwaan Sabir (who later became a PhD student under my supervision), was accused of possessing the so-called “Al Qaeda training manual.”

This may have been alarming for the university administrator who discovered the document. But it was in fact a document downloaded from the US State Department website and was given its title not by “Al Qaeda” but by a US State Department official.

The manual, seized by police in Manchester years earlier, was not authored by Al Qaeda and was compiled before the group even came into existence.

The wrongful arrest and surveillance of the student and his co-accused (a university administrator) were traumatic. Although the case was eventually abandoned, the incident highlights the dangers of overzealous and politically motivated uses of terrorism legislation in the UK.

These cases—and many others—demonstrate that the British state has a long history of using terrorism legislation for political purposes. Not everything that looks like it might be related to “terrorism”, actually is.

What is new today, however, is the absence of any actual threat of political violence in the UK from Palestinian resistance factions or their supporters. Of course, the threat of political violence in the UK in the period after 2003 was not zero, even though as I have shown it was exaggerated deliberately for political reasons.

Today, we are witnessing an unprecedented onslaught against demonstrators, activists, and journalists highlighting the ongoing genocide in Gaza, enabled by Western states.

This campaign seeks to intimidate and silence the public, discourage resistance, and dismantle the effective elements of the anti-Zionist movement—most notably its cutting-edge, Palestine Action.

We are seeing this increasing assault because the disconnect between the people and the powerful in the UK is growing at an alarming pace.

When the two main parties offer precious little in terms of alternative policies, disillusion grows. When a hated long-lasting conservative government was voted out in the past, a new broom would be guaranteed a bounce in the polls and some measure of tolerance from the voters.

No such ‘Starmer bounce’ has happened this year. And that means we are right back where we were after the Iraq War albeit with no obvious way out except for a deepening radicalization in the population and the pro-Palestine movement.

The movement must seize the chance that this offers and become more effective in material anti-Zonism, including more direct action, demobilization of the Zionist movement, and the building of alternative political structures that can effectively challenge the Zionist parties who will otherwise have politics sewn up.

David Miller is the producer and co-host of Press TV’s weekly Palestine Declassified show. He was sacked from Bristol University in October 2021 over his Palestine advocacy. 

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV)

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk