Eroding the Consensus: Moshé Machover Interview
By Moshé Machover & Christopher Dols
In the fall of 2017, the new “movement for science” was less than a year old and the revived Science for the People was still defining its unique contribution to that movement. We knew that we opposed the liberal shibboleth that “politics has no place in science,” but where would we draw the line? Rather than defining some set limits for ourselves, we set out to show through examples how broadly we understand what we call “Radical Science” to be. The case of Moshé Machover’s expulsion from the United Kingdom’s Labour Party (complete with slanderous accusations of antisemitism) gave us the opportunity to push at several boundaries.
Most centrally, the politics of the case concern the critical questions of internationalism and anti-colonialism, themes which Machover himself has embodied for more than half a century. The original Science for the People often integrated geopolitical analysis and international solidarity throughout its coverage of world events and this interview demonstrates our continued commitment to that approach.
Further, Machover’s status as a distinguished mathematician allowed us to activate a network of leftwing mathematicians that has persisted in the years since the original SftP was publishing. Appropriately for this case, the network has strong links through the French and British academic Palestine solidarity organizations AURDIP and BRICUP as well as Scientists for Palestine. The math connection also allowed us to reassert SftP’s commitment to embracing the full STEM acronym (and beyond!) as within our jurisdiction.
Lastly, the specifics of the case allowed for us to host and engage with an important discussion of political strategy relevant to the new socialist movement developing around the world. Efforts to repress and marginalize anti-colonial speech have always been central to colonial strategy. In part because of the network of prestigious scientists and mathematicians that we were able to mobilize, Machover’s expulsion became a rare opportunity to translate such attempted repression into an embarrassing defeat for those who slandered and expelled him. Machover was reinstated into the Labour Party and continues his work to advocate for justice for Palestine from within its ranks.
Interested in seeing more articles like this? You can help support Science for the People‘s return to publishing in May 2019 by donating to our Kickstarter!
Shortly after Moshé Machover was expelled from the UK’s Labour Party, Science for the People activists organized an international petition in his defense. Prioritizing academics from Machover’s fields–Mathematics and Philosophy of Logic–but also featuring Israelis, Palestine solidarity activists, and British legal professionals, the list of Lead Signatories quickly became impressively star-studded. Machover’s colleagues had rallied to his defense and, just as we were preparing to deliver and publish the petition, we received word that the expulsion had been rescinded!
With his accusers put on the defensive, Machover had the additional solidarity of dozens of prominent academics and political figures. And since our petition’s demand–for an investigation into the causes of the expulsion–remained unmet, we had every reason to press on. In conjunction with the new British formation Jewish Voice for Labour which tracks all the developments surrounding this campaign, Science for the People delivered the petition to Labour Party leaders on November 16, 2018.
Read the full petition statement here. For more of the back story, please follow the links included within.
In the course of carrying out the campaign, several important political questions emerged: How to understand the debates and maneuvers within the Labour Party? What is the history of Palestine solidarity activism within Labour? Why is Machover himself so controversial to those who support Israel? In a wide-ranging interview that weaves 100 years of British imperialism in the Middle East with internal British Labour Party politics, Moshé Machover answers all this and more in this exclusive conversation with Science for the People.
Science for the People: Thank you for speaking with us. As the details of your expulsion from and readmission into the Labour Party have been well documented I hope that we can discuss some of the context and background. To begin, can you talk about your relationship to the Labour Party since you moved to the UK in 1968?
Moshé Machover: Well, I joined the Labour Party the first time sometime in the 1970s. It must have been around 1973 because I remember some connection with the Yom Kippur War. But I didn’t stay long because like many people I saw the party moving to the right at that time. And in fact towards the end of the 1970’s it moved sharply to the right. Like a lot of people I actually gave up on the Labour Party. Some joined various little leftist groups–what the French call groupuscules–but I didn’t. I remained in touch with a lot of people around the radical left but I did not join any particular organization.
A couple of years ago, there was an initiative by Ken Loach to form a new party called Left Unity consisting mainly of people who had given up on the Labour Party. But then, you know, not long afterwards, Labour elected—somewhat surprisingly and possibly by a fluke—someone who didn’t expect to be elected; someone who stood just because it was, as the English say, Buggin’s Turn. The Left in the Labour Party—the very small left remaining in the Labour Party—every time a leadership contest came up used to put forward a candidate without any hope of winning. Just to make a point, to assert their existence, as it were. This time it was the turn of Jeremy Corbyn. He stood and lo and behold, something completely unexpected happened. I mean, now in retrospect you can see why it happened. I mean it wasn’t just a coincidence.
Then I felt like many people in Left Unity that what’s the point? The real interesting goings on are in the Labour Party and like hundreds of thousands of people I rejoined the Labour Party. I rejoined like many older people and of course among the hundreds of thousands who joined at the time in the last couple of years are many younger people who have been alienated from politics; they didn’t see the point. They weren’t even registered on the electoral roll. And a lot of younger people who had been alienated from politics joined so now the Labour Party has become the largest party of any kind in Western Europe. It’s some 800,000 people, a massive party for a country the size of Britain.
So I was part of this; but of course you see that this party is now a very strange animal because the grassroots are huge and massively to the left. A small circle of leadership around Jeremy Corbyn and some of his closer associates are also of the left but the middle of the party, that is to say the bureaucracy, most of the members of Parliament, elected councilmen, members of local town and county councils are remnants of the Blairite years. They are part of what used to be called New Labour which now looks definitely very, very old.
SftP: And so there’s this rift within the Party between the Blairites and supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. How much does your expulsion reflect that division?
MM: Absolutely. It is a straightforward reflection. The bureaucracy, the old guard of so-called New Labour, started expelling or suspending anyone they suspected of being on the Left. I was by no means the first, nor I understand, the last. It just so happens that in my case—something unexpected to me and to the witch-hunters, which is what they are has occurred—I got a huge wave of solidarity from within the party and beyond. And now, after I’ve been reinstated, I was gratified by the solidarity resolution asking for an apology and an investigation of the mechanism and means of the expulsion. For example, a local branch of the train drivers union, one of the lines of the London Underground adopted a unanimous resolution supporting me.
SftP: I do want to talk more about the solidarity campaign that helped you regain your membership, but first I want to ask you about the efforts by Zionists in the UK and even the Israeli embassy itself as reported by Al Jazeera earlier this year. How does this relate to what you just described, the Labour Party bureaucracy’s campaign against Corbyn and his base. Is it simply a confluence of overlapping interests?
MM: I think they work in what is known as synergy. But it’s really three factors, not two. First of all there are the Zionists, committed to Israel, who hate the fact that for the first time in its history, the leader of the Labour Party is a known supporter of Palestinian rights. And it actually got expression in his speech at the latest conference of the Party back in September. So this is one part. They really care about Israel and they have weaponized the accusation of anti-semitism which they conflate with anti-Zionism.
And this is orchestrated of course by the Israeli Hasbara, the propaganda machine. By the way there is a minister in the Israeli cabinet who is in charge of this world wide campaign. His name is Gilad Erdan. He is minister of strategic affairs which means this international campaign but also internal security in Israel and of propaganda. He is a senior minister in the cabinet and he is orchestrating this. I mention this because you mentioned before the al Jazeera program.
Al Jazeera wasn’t quite precise about the person involved, the Israeli agent. He was based in the Israeli embassy but he wasn’t working for the foreign ministry. He was working for the ministry of Gilad Erdan. Shai Masot was the name of this guy. And in fact there was some kind of conflict between him and the ambassador because of who was reporting to whom—he was in the embassy but he was also talking to Erdan which the ambassador didn’t like very much. But that’s just by the way.
Then there are people who hate Jeremy Corbyn, but care very little about Israel and Palestine but they just use it as a cudgel to hit Corbyn. So while there certainly are people who belong to both categories, among those who use accusations of anti-Semitism are people who do it cynically without really caring about Palestine and Israel.
Then there is, above these reasons, an international dimension. Israel plays an important role in the alignment and strategy of the United States regionally in the Middle East and the globe. This has been documented—if you want we can go into greater detail—but Israel is a strategic asset to the United States. Now the United States is heading what is euphemistically referred to as the ’International Community’. It used to be called the ‘Free World’ in the old days, but it is really the bloc of the United States and its camp followers. And there is a hierarchy in it. Some members of this so-called International Community are higher up than others. Britain is fairly high up. Not quite as high up as Israel. British elites and the British establishment fancy their “special relationship” with the United States. Well, yes, but not quite as special as Israel.
A condition for being in this ‘International Community’ is being nice to the Rottweiler of the boss. Which is Israel. So if the Rottweiler pisses on your shoes, you don’t kick it, but you say, “good dog, good dog.” So there is this obligation which is shared by the whole establishment in Britain irrespective of party. So you have them desperately trying to block any criticism of Israel. What is worrying them—and this worries all three circles that I mentioned—is that in actual public opinion, Israel is losing the fight.
And this applies even–I think it is also to some extent true of the United States–it was revealed in the support that was displayed in the run up to the American election, especially young people. And what is worrying for Israel especially is among Jewish people there is a process of alienation and unease about Israel. Because they don’t like being identified with what Israel is doing. Israel claims to speak on behalf of all Jews around the world and to act on their behalf. And that implies that they are complicit in what Israel is doing. And a lot of younger Jews, especially don’t like it—and I’m talking about under-30s—you’ve got a sense of this in the Bernie Sanders campaign in the United States. Of course the United States is far behind Britain in this respect.
So that is the background. These bureaucrats, right-wingers and Zionists in the Labour Party and outside undertaking this campaign of which I was and am still one victim. But there are many, many victims.
SftP: On the subject of imperialism, since we are talking on the 100th anniversary of the publication of the Balfour Declaration, can you summarize the long arc of British relations with Zionism over the last century with a particular focus on the role played by the Labour Party.
MM: OK. The Balfour Declaration is now being talked about quite a lot. I think many people don’t have the details quite right. They believe that there was a country called Palestine and that there was something called Sykes-Picot agreement that Britain made with France in 1916 during the First World War and according to this agreement Palestine was to come under British rule. And the British then promulgated the Balfour Declaration. This description is the standard one and it’s almost completely wrong.
I don’t know if you want me to get into the details of why it is wrong, but just briefly: According to the Sykes-Picot agreement, Palestine should not have come under British rule but was to come under joint British and French administration. A country called Palestine didn’t pre-exist. It was a vague concept. It’s like every American knows what the Midwest is. But there’s no state called the Midwest; it’s not a well-defined political entity. So Palestine was understood roughly, especially by western people and locally by Palestinians who were west-looking, many local Christian residents. It was the south of Greater Syria.
According to the Sykes-Picot agreement, this part should have been administered jointly by Britain and France. Prime Minister Lloyd George did not fulfill the Sykes-Picot agreement in two respects. One of them was, if you look at the map of Syria you will see very clearly if you look at the South eastern border of Syria: It’s mostly a straight line, but there are two kinks at each end. The line drawn by Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot was to be straight from the ‘e’ in Acre to the last ‘k’ in Kirkuk. You know they took a map and drew a straight line with a ruler!
But Lloyd George heard that in Mosul there is oil as well as in Kirkuk. According the Sykes-Picot agreement, Mosul–about which we’ve heard quite a bit recently—was supposed to be in Syria, not in Iraq. But Lloyd George, being the head of the government that came out of the First World War stronger—not quite so strong as it had entered it, but stronger than France—as part of the rivalry, he grabbed this part. And also he wanted to grab Palestine. But for this he needed the support of Woodrow Wilson. And the Balfour Declaration was in part promulgated in order to get the support of Woodrow Wilson for Britain to have the mandate over Palestine.
And then the Balfour Declaration actually defined what Palestine was to be. It’s not that there was a country called Palestine and Britain gave it to the Zionists in the Balfour Declaration but the Balfour Declaration actually defined what Palestine was to become. The whole idea was to start in Palestine an implantation of a community that would owe its security and its existence to Britain and it would serve its interests. The first British Governor of Jerusalem after the First World War Ronald Storrs put it like this: “We have in Palestine a little loyal Jewish Ulster [i.e. Northern Ireland] in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.”
So that was the idea. And this is what actually the Zionist project of colonization has always been. It is unique in the sense that unlike, for example, the colonization of North America which was implemented initially exclusively by citizens of the metropolis that had possession of it. So the British actually went there and then they sent their own citizens. So there was the mother country and its citizens colonizing. In the case of Palestine the Zionist settlers were not citizens of a metropolis that possessed that part of the world. So they needed a surrogate mother country. And they always looked for the imperial power that would be dominant in that part of the world and made a deal with it. First it was Britain.
This lasted until some time in the 30’s when it became difficult for Britain to reconcile with its other regional interests. Britain is known, you know, for its duplicity. Actually, it’s more like triplicity. Because there was the agreement with France, which Britain broke. Then there were the promises they made to the Arabs who were rebelling against the Turkish empire in order to get their support. They promised these Arabs in Arabia a large, independent Arab state which would encompass Palestine. And then they promised Palestine to the Zionists. So there were three incompatible promises which Britain had to juggle. Britain had other possessions in the area and its promotion of the Zionist project became difficult to maintain alongside its other interests in the region.
On the other hand, the Zionist project became more ambitious. The original promise was not to found a Jewish Nation-state by giving the whole of Palestine to the Zionists but to create within Palestine a national home for the Jews. But now, the Zionists wanted the whole cake and they wanted their own nation-state. So they came into conflict with Britain. Until that point and in fact until the Second World War, the British Labour Party was even more keen than the British Government to promote the Zionist project. There is a resolution of the Labour Party from its conference in 1944 which actually advocates the transfer of population: let the Arabs move out as the Jews move in. Let’s transfer them to some other part of the region. I have the resolution in front of me, if you like?
SftP: Yes, please.
MM: The resolution was authored by Hugh Dalton and it is the most pro-Zionist resolution ever adopted by the Labour Party:
There is surely neither hope nor meaning in a ‘Jewish National Home’ unless we are prepared to let Jews, if they wish, enter this tiny land in such numbers as to become a majority…. In Palestine surely is a case, on human grounds, and to promote a stable settlement, for transfer of population. Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in. Let them be compensated handsomely for their land… settlement elsewhere be carefully organized and generously financed. The Arabs have many wide territories of their own; they must not claim to exclude the Jews from this small area of Palestine… we should re-examine the possibility of extending the present Palestinian boundaries by agreement with Egypt, Syria or Transjordan. Moreover, we should seek to win the full sympathy and support both of the American and Russian Governments for the execution of this Palestinian policy.
SftP: So that’s the Labour Party position during the second World War. And as the war weakened Britain’s colonial influence, this strategy of population transfer is precisely what paved the way for Israel’s creation a few years later. Without the “handsome compensation,” of course. That’s a pretty incredible quote. But to move us up through the decades, when did the US emerge as Israel’s primary backer?
MM: Before Israel became the rottweiler of the United States, Israel’s main imperial sponsor was France. The United States was not very interested in fact. In 1956 when Israel, in collusion with France and Britain attacked Egypt, the US actually compelled Israel to withdraw. And France’s alliance with Israel was connected with other problems the French had in the region. They regarded Egypt as the big supporter of the Algerian revolution. If Egypt did not support it then they thought that the Algerian resistance would collapse. This led them to support Israel and invite Israel’s invasion. This support from France ended some time in the 1960’s, before the ‘67 war.
Israel began to receive substantial arms from the United States some time in the 1960’s escalating up to 1966. And the June War of ‘67 would not have happened if the United States hadn’t given Israel the green light. That is important because a lot of people believe that Israel became sort of the United States’ junior partner following the June War of ‘67 but that is not quite true. It wouldn’t have moved against Egypt in 1967 without American say-so.
SftP: I’d like you to talk about the group you built in these years, the Israeli Socialist Organization, also known as Matzpen. It’s my understanding that throughout Western Europe there was a consensus on the political left, including within the Labour Party, of support for Israel: a general sympathy for the international Jewish diaspora after the holocaust but naive to the reality and consequences that Zionism had for the Palestinian people. And that Matzpen introduced a systematic critique of Israel to left-wing audiences for the first time. And as the messengers were Jewish Israelis, you began the process of eroding the Zionist consensus in social democratic parties throughout Europe.
MM: Yes, but I should say there was another factor in the sympathy for Israel because Israel had managed very cleverly and successfully to present itself as the underdog in the ‘67 situation. It helped also that Egypt’s president Nasser made blood-curdling, threatening speeches and so on. The Israeli generals knew very well that he was in no position to attack Israel, that his best forces were tied up in Yemen, that the position of his forces in Sinai were defensive and that he was not preparing an attack. He was so unprepared for war that he left all his air force parked sitting in airfields, allowing Israel to destroy it.
So both because of what Israel did in its own propaganda as well as helped by the ineptness and strategic and propaganda mistakes by Egypt, Israel was presented as the underdog, as the potential target for annihilation, a second holocaust. Israeli leaders–especially the generals–knew that this was rubbish but a lot of people believed it and it was superficially believable until the actual details became known. So there was a lot of sympathy for Israel. Both for the reasons you mentioned and because of this.
We had some Matzpen comrades already in various European countries. I don’t think we had any actual members in the United States. There was one of our comrades who visited the United States in the early ‘70’s. But we had my late comrade, Akiva Orr, he was in London during the June War of ‘67 and we had a great comrade, Eli Lobel, in Paris. Matzpen had come into being in 1962. By the time of the war we had elaborated the position which is basically our analysis of Zionism. Those of us who associate with the Matzpen group came to an analysis that remains valid today–things have not changed except becoming worse. You know like in substance they did not change. So we were ready to come out with how we regarded the war, that the state of Israel is a settler state of a special kind, that Zionism is a colonizing project, that it is based on denial of the national as well as individual rights of Palestinian Arabs and so on and so forth. So we were able to put forward this analysis.
I came to London at the end of 1968 and I joined this campaign. At that time we were much younger, and we had the energy. We were going up and down the country four times a week in different places. Mostly in student meetings. In those days each university had its own socialist society, which grouped together socialists, some from the Labour party and some from the groups of the radical Left. They were thirsty for information and analysis of what is actually going on. Look, I mean, I don’t think it was only what we said, it was also reality. They looked at the reality that didn’t quite conform, soon things began to happen that didn’t quite conform, to the picture that they had of the situation. So they were puzzled. It’s not that we came and changed their minds a hundred-and-eighty degrees. People were actually looking for information.
We did a lot of work over the years and it seems to have worked to a great extent. Look, I tell you, wherever I go to a meeting these days, usually about the Middle East, someone comes up to me, an elderly person with grey hair, maybe in their fifties or sixties, and they say, “you know, you can’t remember me, but I was a student, in 1972,” let’s say, “in Essex university. And you came and gave a talk and it sort of changed my mind. I remember you from that time and I changed my thoughts about the situation in the Middle East.” I can tell you that almost in every meeting that I go to I get this kind of reaction. So it must have worked somehow.
Another index of this is how it percolated into the Left of the Labour Party. The Labour Party had been very pro-Zionist and it became sort of majority right wing mainstream. Which is not surprising because the right-wing of the Labour Party supported this establishment view of things international as well as national. I mean they were, sort of, a bit left-of-center. But not more than a bit.
But there was always a Left in the Labour party. A distinguished and admired leader of the Left was Anthony Benn, about whom you may have heard. The present left-wing leadership were all associated with him. He was a sort of figurehead. At the time when I arrived in Britain, he was considered officially as a friend of Mapam, a sort of Left Zionist party [in Israel]. Over the years, he became a supporter of Palestinian rights, he was a sponsor of the Palestine solidarity campaign and so forth. He became strongly opposed to the Zionist project.
Now it’s not that he was present in any of the meetings in which any of us spoke but it shows you that there was a shift in the climate on the left especially among people who were young at the time. So there is this process. Jeremy Corbyn, as it were, is in part a product of that shift that happened in the immediate period after the June War of ‘67.
SftP: I understand, but it’s worth acknowledging that you did in fact help the British Left take a step forward in its understanding of Zionism and its solidarity with the Palestinian cause. It’s almost appropriate that fifty years later, the campaign that emerges within the Labour Party to hold Zionist influence within it to account is in large part around you. So has this latest campaign created an opportunity to advance Matzpen’s analysis of Israel?
MM: Sure, sure. Any such situation actually can backfire from the point of view of the people who are instigating the witch hunt. Look, I was an unknown person. As I told you I was known to a lot of people in the Left, on the margins, but I wasn’t known nationally. People didn’t come to interview me. I was thinking to myself, look I’m becoming an old fart sitting at my desk writing articles on the situation in the Middle East, analysis and so on. Which is published in a modest weekly, the Weekly Worker; maybe 2000 people read, but that’s all. I mean, it doesn’t go very far. And now, I think that this modest little paper that has done me the honor of publishing my article; I’m sure a lot of people are saying to themselves, what is all this fuss about? What are these articles that are allegedly antisemitic, that shouldn’t have been published in that paper anyways, etc.
You know what they say: any publicity is good so long as they spell your name right. I think these witch hunters are kicking themselves for finally picking on someone who has aroused such a wave of solidarity. And I’m feeling a little bit guilty about it because I’m not the only one by any means. And other victims have not had this kind of support. Probably because I’m older than most of them and have been around and have written a lot about this subject and I’m an Israeli. So this also counts for why it was easier for people to rally.
SftP: So, we’ve gone back 100 years and are now back at the present. I want to talk about your expulsion and the campaign to reverse it. I understand that there was quite the push within the local Labour Party branches and that that campaign continues to pursue an apology as well as an investigation. You mentioned earlier the locomotive workers resolution, for example. But what were the accusations against you in the first place?
MM: You see there are two things: First of all there is the smear of antisemitism that has no basis at all. You just have to look at what I’ve written. It takes a sick mind to actually associate this with antisemitism. And this requires an apology. And in fact it requires examining the premises from which the accusations have been made. Because they rely on some kind of fake definition of antisemitism, some kind of sly formulation of what antisemitism is all about. They haven’t actually proved that my writings are in any way antisemitic. What they have actually demonstrated is that their definition is false. In fact, it’s what we logicians call reductio ad absurdum. They have reduced to absurdity the premise.
But they still need to apologize. And beyond this there is the draconic rule which they used to expel me. In the end, the smear of antisemitism was only mood music. It was a gratuitous smear because it wasn’t actually used as a pretext for expelling me. It wouldn’t have worked as a pretext. But what they used was a certain rule in the Labour Party rule book. There’s a rule book, you know, which you can find online. So, I think 2.I.4B is the article that they used against me; which allows them to expel automatically anyone who is a member and/or a supporter of a political organization other than those that are affiliated to the Labour Party. Now, there are three things obviously wrong with this.
First of all that you can expel someone automatically. That means without any hearing, without any chance to examine the evidence; so the bureaucrats can just expel you. Secondly the rule doesn’t define what ‘political organization’ is. Except it defines what political organizations are permitted. But it doesn’t define what are the political organizations that you shouldn’t be a member or supporter of. So, it could include Momentum, which is a big movement mainly of supporters of the Labour Party, but it is not affiliated with the Labour Party. To be in Momentum you don’t need to be a member of the Labour Party. It could be an organization called Refuge for fighting against domestic violence. There is such an organization that fights domestic violence and militates against modern slavery, etc. This is a political organization. And the rule is so vague, it could apply to the Electoral Reform Society. There is a society in Britain which advocates some kind of quasi-proportional representation. So it’s a political organization. It’s about politics and it’s an organization. And lastly, the rule doesn’t define what support means. And if you think about it, support is not yes or no matter. It’s like these deceptive referendums. You are asked to make a false choice: you are given just two choices when in fact it’s not a yes or no question.
So I am not a member of either of the organizations they mention [in the expulsion letter]. One is the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) that publishes the paper Weekly Worker in which many of my articles have been published. And the other is Labour Party Marxists. Which I think did the thing that really got them furious. It reproduced an article I had written in the Weekly Worker a year ago–actually before I joined the Labour Party–and they distributed it in the Labour conference in September. It was selling like hotcakes. They actually managed to get rid of thousands of copies. The article was about why anti-Zionism is not the same as antisemitism. And this actually got a huge amount of support. So they expelled me for “supporting” these two groups.
I have had very little dealing with Labour Party Marxists except that I allowed them to republish. They asked me, “Can we reprint your article?” I think it’s a matter of elementary politeness and I said, “Of course!” Anyone who wants to republish my article would be welcome. So I allowed them. That’s my dealings with them. With the CPGB, yes I use their forum; it’s very hospitable because, although they are a very small group, their paper is not the sort of a party organ that publishes only their own stuff. They open it to the whole of the Marxist left. So people publish stuff that conflicts with their program. And they allow it. This is very nice of them and it’s also very clever. Because it makes their paper more interesting than the papers and journals published by little left groups because there is discussion and debate within it. And this is why I like to publish there.
I support some of their views but not others. Originally, before the election of Corbyn as Labour leader, one of the things I didn’t agree with them is that they were too optimistic about the Labour Party. Even before Corbyn, they used to say don’t give up on the Labour Party. It’s still the party of the British working class. Which is true, though it was a right wing party of the working class. But they said, “Don’t give up on it! It’s possible to change it and fighting for its soul is worthwhile.” I thought they were talking rubbish. But that was before I joined the Labour Party of course. Now I realize that they had a point.
Another thing I support: contrary to other groups on the left, they advocate all trade unions be affiliated to the Labour Party. Not all trade unions in Britain are affiliated to the Labour Party. Some have disaffiliated during the previous years because they didn’t get support from the Labour Party for their members. And there are groups on the left which are not too eager for trade unions in which they have influence to rejoin the Labour Party. The CPGB advocates this. What’s wrong with it? I support this position. Can the Labour Party complain about me supporting the CPGB position which calls for all unions to affiliate to the Labour Party? I mean this is ridiculous. I don’t agree with all their positions but this draconic catch-all rule is used to get rid of leftists from the Labour Party. And it is still being used, I mean, the witch-hunt is by no means finished.
SftP: One of the main reasons I think you’ve received so much support beyond those partisans of the debate about Israel is because in content and spirit the accusations do come with a strong hint of McCarthyism.
MM: Yes, yes. Absolutely. I mean it stinks of McCarthyism.
SftP: So can you talk a bit more about the mood music as you described it? The accusation that your anti-Zionism constitutes antisemitism. In that letter in which they expelled you they referenced your “apparent antisemitism” but also said that because you’re no longer a member of the party, you don’t have any right to defend yourself against this accusation.
MM: No, no, no, you are slightly wrong, what they said was, we can’t investigate you because you’re not a member of this party. We expelled you because of this other thing. But since you’re not a member, we can’t actually say anything about it. The whole mention of these vile accusations was completely gratuitous, it was otiose, it did not have anything to do formally with the reason for my expulsion.
SftP: So, now that you’re a member again, can you insist on such an investigation to turn the tables and advance a better understand of what anti-Zionism is?
MM: I don’t think I have a need to defend myself against the accusations of antisemitism. As I told you they are so absurd as to actually refute the assumptions from which they make these accusations, so I think even trying to defend myself against the accusations would give the accusers too much credit. It’s not even worth defending against. It’s rubbish. I mean, if I accuse you of being a witch would you defend yourself? Would you try to prove you are not a witch? I mean, this is totally absurd. But, I demand an apology.
SftP: So I do want to give you an opportunity to respond to the international solidarity you’ve received. The petition that Science for the People organized has attracted the support of dozens of renowned scientists and human rights leaders. But most impressive has been the ranks of your colleagues, prestigious mathematicians including Sir Michael Atiyah, David Mumford, Stephen Smale, Neal Koblitz, David Klein, Colette Moeglin, Ivar Ekeland, Joseph Oesterlé, Michael Harris, Ahmed Abbes, Emmanuel Farjoun, Chandler Davis, and Catherine Goldstein.
MM: Well, look, when I saw these names I just gasped: Smale? Mumford? Atiyah? I mean, for a mathematician–you know; mathematics doesn’t have a Nobel Prize. It has the Fields Medal. And in fact it’s even better than the Nobel Prize because they don’t give it to people for lifetime achievements when they are near the grave. You have to be under 40. So these are names that mathematicians venerate. I am so overwhelmed, and some of the other names that you mentioned are some of the great mathematicians and scientists. I really appreciate them mobilizing to support a colleague. I am not a great mathematician. I’ve been a lifelong mathematician, but I’m nowhere near the stature of the people you have mentioned. But they have mobilized to support me.
This is very nice of them but also I think it is what should be done. Because mathematicians and other scientists should not stay in their proverbial ivory tower; they are part of society and they should use their knowledge of their subject and general reality to mobilize for progress against the forces of darkness.
SftP: Obviously in Science for the People we share a commitment to using whatever legitimacy or intellectual contribution our solidarity can lend. I do wonder if the efforts within the Labour Party might experience any kind of a boost from this type of international solidarity.
MM: This cannot but help the forces of light against the forces of darkness. It’s obvious and I think the British have always had a tendency to be a little bit insular. I mean they live in an island and they have an insular mentality. But they also have an inkling that there is world beyond; and it is very important for people in the Labour Party to realize it’s not just an internal Labour Party affair and it’s not just an British affair. They are realizing now because some of the expressions of support come from outside the Labour Party there are groups and organizations close to but not within the Labour party, and to see that there is an international dimension.
Because this is an international issue. We started our discussion with mention that at least two of the three factors [behind the allegations against me] are international. Both the Zionist campaign worldwide against people who criticize Israel and the Zionist project of colonization and also the commitment of the powers that be to the American hegemon. These are international factors. The hate for Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour Party is a local matter but this is only part of the picture. And the rest of it is international so I don’t see any reason why the fight within the Labour Party should be regarded as something that people outside should not have any say about.
Thanks to Daphna Thier and Amber Keller for transcription assistance.