During the years when Jeremy Corbyn led the UK Labor party, and anti-Semitism within the party’s ranks became a full-blown crisis, Chris Williamson became one of several members of parliament who attracted attention for his obsessive hatred of Israel, his paranoid beliefs about the power of the “Zionist lobby,” and his dismissiveness of the concerns of Jewish leaders. Since his expulsion from the party and departure from parliament, his activities have included a weekly radio show sponsored by the Iranian government called Palestine Declassified. Marc Goldberg reviews Williamson’s recent memoir, Ten Years Hard Labor:

From 2017 until his suspension in 2019 it is fair to say that Williamson represented for many one of the main symbols of Labor’s anti-Semitism problem. According to Williamson this is because he was “in the crosshairs of the Zionist lobby.” A lobby which he describes as “aggressive” and “fanatical.” He claims that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which found that Labor had behaved unlawfully to its Jewish members, had been “appropriated by the Zionist lobby.” What precisely the Zionist lobby is we are left to ponder. [The major institutions of Anglo-Jewry, along with the] Jewish Labor Movement, are all mentioned in the book as if they are a part of it.

Williamson’s major criticism of Labor is that it took complaints of anti-Semitism too seriously:

Williamson criticizes Corbyn because “rather than rebutting the ‘anti-Semitism’ smears, he indulged them.” He refers to a “fake ‘anti-Semitism crisis’” within the Labor party. In fact, the book is peppered with references to the “smear” of anti-Semitism and also claims it was “bogus.” The attempt to argue both that he thinks that the Labor party had done an excellent job of tackling the “scourge of Judeophobia” and that it was a “smear” at the same time appears to be contradictory.

Williamson claims that his fellow MP Naz Shah’s public apology for her own previous anti-Semitic discourse was “craven” and that one of her [controversial social-media] posts, implying that Jewish Israelis should leave their homes and live in the U.S., was “a perfectly reasonable and moderate observation to make” adding that “there was no way that I was going to fold like a deck of cards as Shah had done in the face of a coordinated smear operation by the Zionist lobby.”

At present, Williamson laments, “the Labor party is a victim of state capture. Much of its international policy is now effectively dictated by the state of Israel.”

If there’s one lesson to be learned from the history of the Israel-Arab conflict, it’s never to be confident that an end is in sight. Ehud Yaari nevertheless—and with all due caution—points to some noteworthy developments:

The absolute primacy of “armed struggle” in Palestinian discourse has discouraged any serious attempt to discuss or plan for a future Palestinian state. Palestinian political literature is devoid of any substantial debate over what kind of a state they aspire to create. What would be its economic, foreign, and social policies?

One significant exception was a seminar held by Hamas in Gaza—under the auspices of the late Yahya Sinwar—prior to October 7, 2023. The main focus of what was described as a brainstorming session was the question of how to deal with the Jews in the land to be liberated. A broad consensus between the participants was reached that most Israeli Jews should be eradicated or expelled while those contributing to Israel’s success in high tech and other critical domains would be forced to serve the new Palestinian authorities.

Yet, the ongoing aftershocks from the ongoing war in Gaza are posing questions among Palestinians concerning the viability of armed struggle. So far this trend is reflected mainly in stormy exchanges on social-media platforms and internal controversies within Hamas. There is mounting criticism leveled at the late Mohammad Deif and Yahya Sinwar for embarking upon an uncoordinated offensive that is resulting in a “Second Nakba”—a repeat of the defeat and mass displacement caused by launching the war in 1948.

To be sure, “armed struggle” is still being preached daily to the Palestinian communities by Iran and Iranian proxies, and at least half the Palestinian public—according to various polls—believe it remains indispensable. But doubts are being heard. We may be reaching a point where the Palestinians will feel compelled to make a choice between the road which led to past failures and an attempt to chart a new route. It will certainly require time and is bound to cause fractures and divisions, perhaps even a violent split, among the Palestinians.