BRITISH PALESTINE, BRITISH COMMUNISTS, AND THE “iDEO-LOGICAL” sYSTEM OF LABOUR MONTHLY Th e Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) off ers an account of the Mandate of Palestine strikingly divergent from the rest of British society. Th rough their ideology, the CPGB constructed a narrative of Palestinian issues fo- cused on British policy, which was identifi ed as the imperial-capitalist activities of a scheming “British imperialism.” With this ideological center, a discussion emerged that orientalized the Arab nationalist as a progressive revolution- ary, diff erentiated between reactionary Zionist and average Jewish settler, and opposed partition as imperialism. Running throughout these themes was an optimism for Arab-Jewish unity, a conclusion shared with offi cial British government observers. Th e British Communist view on the Mandate is marked out as radically Communist and distinctly British. By Emerson Bodde ‘16 Case Western Reserve University of an anti-British, British opinion on the issue of Palestine was that of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). Formed in 1920, primarily as an affi liate of the USSR-led Comintern (Th ird International), the CPGB was the main Communist Party of Britain. Like the other Comintern par- ties, the CPGB was strongly infl uenced by the offi cial opinion and ruling policies of the Soviet party, meaning that dramatic shift s in Soviet foreign policy found their expression in CP- GB-related media outlets.1 Th e British Communists off ered a unique and interesting perspective on the confl icts and dilemmas of British Mandate Palestine primarily through the CPGB-linked journal Labour Monthly, the organization’s Arab recruits line up in a barracks square in the British main media outlet. Whereas the typical British politicians, such as Winston Churchill and Ramsay MacDonald, opined Mandate of Palestine (1940) on Palestine with the legal, moral, and political restraints of Source: AP the Balfour Declaration and strong Zionist sympathies, the “His Majesty’s government view with favour the estab- CPGB worked within the parameters set by offi cial Soviet lishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jew- opinion, Soviet foreign policy, and Communist ideology. ish people… it being clearly understood that nothing Given this constraint, Labour Monthly’s coverage of Palestine shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious centered on the specter of “British imperialism” in regards rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” to Palestinian and Zionist policies, essentially reifying it into the ideological center of gravity which structured the British hose were the words, set forth in the Balfour Declara- Communist coverage of Palestine. Combined with a distinc- tion, which came to haunt many a British politician in tion between “Zionist” and “Jew,” this ideological basis pro- the course of the British Mandate of Palestine. Balanc- duced the themes of a direct anti-racist Soviet fetish for the Ting British obligations to establish a Jewish national home oriental peasant, a near-constant opposition to the idea of in Palestine and respecting the rights of Palestinian Arabs partition, and an ever-present optimism in the ability of Jew was simple for the British Zionist-idealist, diffi cult for the and Arab to unite in anti-imperialist struggle against capital- realistic Briton who recognized the ever-escalating violence ism and the British Empire. From the postulate of “British between Zionist and Arab, and nearly impossible for the imperialism,” the CPGB developed a self-consistent “ideo- actual British offi cers working on the ground in Palestine. logical” system. Th ough the CPGB was constrained by So- But regardless of their opinion on the matter, British poli- viet policies, the relative consistency of those policies over ticians and offi cers were legally and ideologically restrained the course of the Mandate allowed British Communists to into an acceptance of this framework, and could only hope develop a coherent ideological critique of Zionism and Brit- to make it work or get both Zionists and Arab nationalists ish imperialism that incorporated the Marxist-Leninist in- to agree to change these terms and expectations. Yet some terpretations of capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism, Britons did not feel bound to the Balfour Declaration or the which nonetheless proved capable of being fl exible enough strictures of the British government, instead approaching to adjust to the Comintern policy of favoring the creation of each with extreme hostility? One such interesting example Israel in 1947. 25 British Palestine, British Communists Dutt, one of the lead theoreticians of the party, noted “the reactionary character of Zionism” and that the CPGB’s task with Zionists was “one of very patient enlightenment and not primarily polemical propaganda.”5 Up until 1948, the source of progressive revolutionary potential had always been the Arab, with Jews cited as a misled minority and Zionists as a distinct group which manipulated the Jews. However, as Soviet support skewed towards supporting the Zionists and Jewish statehood through partition, as well as the logic of Zi- onist independence weakening the British Empire, the CPGB changed its attitude towards Zionism as reactionary. Whereas the 18th Party Congress rallied for Arab-Jewish unity to “end the Zionist policy of Jewish exclusiveness in industry and ag- riculture [and subject Jewish immigration to Arab-Jewish agreement],” the 19th Congress of 1947 dropped all reference to the term.6 Whereas Zionism was once a main target of the CPGB when it came to Palestine, blame now shift ed to “Brit- ish imperialism,” because with the end of World War II, Zi- onist national aspirations threatened Western integrity; now, anything that threatened Zionist aspirations would be reac- tionary. Th us, when the Arab states invaded Palestine against the Zionist militias (who were supplied by Soviet-backed Czechoslovakia), the Central Committee deemed it a “reac- tionary war conducted by the chieft ains of the Arab League Map of Palestine (1924) under British control [which] is entirely against the interests 7 Source: British War Offi ce, National Library Of Scotland of the Arab masses.” When the winds from Moscow blew, they could be noticeably seen in the changed media coverage THE PROGRESSIVE FORCE IN PALESTINE and political pronouncements of the CPGB. Before one can investigate the various opinions off ered by the British Communists, it is important to consider relevant If one ignores the case of Soviet foreign policy impacting policy changes brought about in the Soviet Union and im- this late period, very consistent themes can be detected in posed on Soviet-supported parties through the institutions the period prior to 1948. One of the more interesting themes of the Comintern. Th e fi rst and most relevant to the Pales- that ran through the CPGB coverage of the Palestinian Man- tinian case was the “Popular Front,” established in 1934 in date that contrasted with all the other political opinions was reaction to the fascist victories in Italy and Germany, which a sort of “Soviet-oriental fetishism,” derived from its political supported political alliances with non-Communist political roots in the semi-rural Russian Revolution, which combined groups, such as the Labour Party and Liberal Party, for anti- with an equation of non-Zionist Jewish and Arab interest. fascist cooperation and action.2 At fi rst, that meant recon- According to the Comintern, the peasant was an agent of ciling with social-democratic parties (like the Labour Party) progressive socialist revolution, meaning that the British once derided as “social fascists,” but the growing Nazi threat communists saw just as much progressive character in the loosened the standards over time to allow the moderate left fellahin as in the western European Jewish settler or Russian and basically any anti-Nazi factions (such as the Liberal peasant. Th us, while the Arab Palestinian was still seen as a Party). In the Palestinian case, that included working with “non-modern peasant,” this endeared the Arab to the Soviet liberal bi-nationalists like Hebrew University President Dr. understanding of how actual socialist revolutions are made, Judah Magnes within the goal of countering Nazi infl uence i.e. that it was made in Russia with mostly peasants. Perhaps in the Zionist and Arab camps.3 Th e Popular Front tactic also the most direct case of a Communist defense of “the Arab” presaged the eventual shift of Communist expectations onto can be found in a book review of Ernest Main’s Palestine at the Jews as the leading anti-imperialist force in Palestine, the Crossroads by former British colonial offi cer for the Pal- rather than the Arabs. estine administration, Th omas Hodgkin (under the pseud- onym “British Resident”). While complimenting Main for Th is trend of Communists shift ing from a temporary alliance being openly imperialistic in his argument for British rule with Zionists to seeing Zionists as the key progressive force and a Jewish majority in Palestine, Hodgkin takes umbrage is most noticeable in the answers and opinions given on the with Main’s serious racism towards the “backward” Arab: question of Zionism. In 1937, Communist M.P. William Gal- Few Arabs, [Main] says, have any political conscious- lacher regarded Zionism as having “always been nothing but ness. Yet it is curious that these politically unconscious a harmful reactionary illusion;”4 as late as 1943, Rajani