Workers Party Logo


Motion on Palestine

The following motion is submitted by George Galloway and Paul Cannon to the forthcoming party congress.

Party policy on Palestine

The Workers Party is appalled by the ceaseless slaughter of Palestinians. Our horror dates back decades, not weeks. There can be no justification for the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in Gaza. The pain will haunt human hearts for generations.

Powerful forces, chiefly the US and Britain, have brought about, sustained and nourished the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and the denial of Palestinian statehood despite every international plan and resolution. The United States is today the chief beneficiary of the current chaos engulfing the middle east, as it was also the chief beneficiary of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

The future of the two state solution today looks more than buried in the rubble of Gaza. But if the people want it, they will produce it. If it’s just an aspiration then other solutions have to be found.

The Workers Party has said in numerous moments and on platforms up and down the country that the future is One State: Israël – Palestine or Palestine-Israël or the Holy Land, the details cannot be worked out by us but the picture is sketched by the flow of recent history.

However horrific this storm is it will not last and it is a part of wider and longer struggle against imperialism and war.

The old world is dying, but the new world is not yet ready to be born. The Workers Party is committed to our task, that of organising British workers to wrest from the exploiting minority the power they hold over us at home, industrial, financial and political, so that British workers may take their place in bringing into life the new world, a world free of Nato and imperialism, a new world of international brotherhood and peace.

George Galloway & Paul Cannon

6 thoughts on “Motion on Palestine

  1. This aim of this motion on the one-state solution exactly reflects what was the original PLO policy- until it was pushed by the US into recognising Israel in return for the promise of a statehood that, 30 years on, is clearly never going to materialise. (Settling 500,000 Zionists in the West Bank has made absolutely sure of that.)
    I applaud this motion, which chimes exactly with that of the One State Campaign (, One Democratic State in Palestine ( ), One Democratic State ( The same drivers exist in Lebanon – the One Democratic State Initiative (, and here in the UK with ourselves- One Democratic Palestine (
    It also aligns with Hamas objectives, as outlined in its 2017 statement: (
    “Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea…
    “Hamas believes in, and adheres to, managing its Palestinian relations on the basis of pluralism, democracy, national partnership, acceptance of the other and the adoption of dialogue…
    “Hamas stresses the necessity of building Palestinian national institutions on sound democratic principles, foremost among them are free and fair elections…
    “Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity…
    “The Palestinian cause in its essence is a cause of an occupied land and a displaced people. The right of the Palestinian refugees and the displaced to return to their homes from which they were banished or were banned from returning to – whether in the lands occupied in 1948 or in 1967 (that is the whole of Palestine), is a natural right, both individual and collective. This right is confirmed by all divine laws as well as by the basic principles of human rights and international law. It is an inalienable right and cannot be dispensed with by any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international.”

  2. Dear George, I don’t know where this ‘workers party’ comes from but the name seems rather inept given the era we live in, how is it to appeal to the disenfranchised precarious members of my generation who have never experienced the great historical struggles that brought us holidays, the weekend and the NHS?

    I could understand this if the ‘workers party’ somehow resonated with existing trade unions, or even posed a serious challenge to them to step up and seize the moment. There are many many reasons why ordinary people should rise up at the moment and should demand of existing trade unions a nationwide boycott of the Tories and all they stand for, including Labour under Keir Starmer. But I wonder whether ‘workers party’ is not too much of an anachronism?

    As a British Jew and an Israeli passport holder I want to reaffirm my support for you and all those opposing the occupation and oppression of Palestine. I am profoundly distraught for my friends and family on both sides of the divide. I am profoundly concerned that at this present moment so few people know enough about the Holocaust or about the Nakba. Debate between myself and those not yet ready to admit the serious errors of Israel all too often devolve into arguments about who did what and who started it all. Without a political understanding of the ways in which capital divides us and sets us against each other it is impossible to understand the relationship between the Holocaust and Israel’s genocidal policies. I refer for instance to how those with capital make a profit from war regardless who wins. Or how economic deprivation drives people to desperation. Or how self-interest leads to a very limited understanding of the causes of oppression, war, inequality and worse.

    I unreservedly reject the idea of a ‘Jewish state’ as a racist anachronism and something the UN should never ever have agreed to in the first place. I believe we should also call on the UN to debate the ridiculous charter under which a single nation like the US can simply veto any proposition. I believe that is the real problem here. Or at least one that demands immediate action.

    1. The name Workers Party is important. Our shared identity, no matter what else affects us, lies in our relationship to production and wealth. We are workers regardless of race, religion etc. Only a fundamental understanding of class can unite the broadest sections of society in a struggle for a better world. Of course more fashionable names could have been picked, but none have a unifying effect. We focus on that which unites us and not that which divides. That’s how we see it.

Give us your thoughts...