How David Miller ruling puts anti-Zionism in the revered antifascist tradition

Earlier this month, a UK employment tribunal upheld a ruling that qualified the anti-Zionist beliefs of former Bristol University Professor David Miller as protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act (2010). This landmark case is significant for the Palestine solidarity movement and reveals an important interplay between narrative wins and their material consequences.

Over the last three years of genocide in Gaza, the Palestine solidarity movement has experienced the narrative terrain as an active site of struggle. Early into Israel’s deadly attacks, Suella Braverman described Palestine demonstrations as “hate marches” and called for the banning of popular protest chants like “from the river to the sea”, deeming them “antisemitic”.

Along the same lines, we have more recently seen protestors arrested for chanting “intifada”. This begs the question: why are such protest chants so threatening to the state and the status quo? The answer lies in understanding the “Battle of Ideas”.

The power of narrative

The “Battle of Ideas” refers to a political and ideological campaign launched in 1999 in Cuba by Fidel Castro.  The campaign utilised the power of narrative to mobilise masses to demand the return of Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez from Miami. Following the success of the campaign, the “Battle of Ideas” became a nationwide effort to reintroduce revolutionary and socialist values among Cuban youth.

The Cuban example sharply reveals the power of narrative in mobilising the masses to turn a demand into reality, and over the last two years, we have seen its relevance in the context of Palestinian liberation.

Over the last decade in the UK, we have seen the narrative ceiling on Palestine elevated from occupation and apartheid to settler colonialism and Zionism. This has occurred despite concerted efforts to tighten the conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, most notably through the widespread adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

However, British Professor David Miller’s case is one example of a victory for Palestine in the “Battle of Ideas”, revealing a rejection of the conflation of Zionism with Judaism and anti-Zionism with antisemitism. His landmark case also reveals that pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist sentiment has become widespread common sense.

This growing acceptance of the Palestine movement winning the narrative war is not only claimed by those involved in solidarity efforts but even admitted by the Israelis themselves. Indeed, leading Israeli think tanks have succumbed to the fact that their hasbara has been insufficient. In response, the Israeli government quintupled its hasbara budget to $730 million. Would they do this if the narrative terrain didn’t have material consequences?

Speaking of material consequences

Miller’s ruling exposes the extent to which pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist sentiment has been embedded within popular discourse. If even the most liberal institutions can deem anti-Zionism to be a protected characteristic, we must consider the strategic openings that this creates for the broader pro-Palestine movement.

An example that immediately comes to mind is the University and College Union (UCU) branch at King’s College London (KCL). Last year, academics and staff actively organised and balloted around key demands for Palestine, including university divestment, academic freedom, and defending staff and students from reprimand. In 2024, KCL agreed to halt direct investments in specific arms suppliers. These expanded efforts by staff and students are thus calling for broader divestment, including companies complicit in the settlement project and the broader military-industrial complex.

Moreover, at least 26 students have faced disciplinary action at King’s after engaging in Palestine organising on campus, and Palestinian lecturer Dr Rana Baker has been targeted by the Zionist lobby and media.

While the strike ballot received widespread support, the turnout threshold was not met, so a full-staff strike could not be mandated. Nevertheless, the recent protection of anti-Zionism will now only strengthen Palestine solidarity efforts on university campuses across the country. This in turn strengthens the very real possibility that workers in Britain could strike for Palestine.

Given that the UK has the harshest strike laws in Europe, whereby political workplace strikes are technically banned under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act (1992), the new protection challenges this. Miller’s case provides grounds for further workplace disputes and employer negotiations, grounded not only in a framework of “illegal settlements” but also in a more expansive approach to anti-Zionism.

An anti-Zionist political party?

Beyond the University campus, the Employment Tribunal’s ruling also has political implications in the electoral arena. Most significantly, there is a “Zionism is Racism” motion being put forward at the upcoming Green Party policy conference. The motion is being put forward by Greens for Palestine and seeks to formally declare the party anti-Zionist, defining Zionism as a form of racial discrimination and settler colonialism.

Whilst the motion failed during the party’s spring conference, the implications of anti-Zionism being confirmed as a protected characteristic make the possibility of the widespread uptake of such a motion much more likely. Concretely, this could mean a British political party insisting on anti-Zionism within the halls of Westminster.

David Miller’s case demonstrates that victories on the terrain of narrative can create new material possibilities for political organising. The decades-long effort to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism attempted to restrict the political horizons of the Palestine movement because what can be said determines, in part, what can be organised around, demanded and ultimately won.

By affirming that anti-Zionist beliefs can receive protection under equality law, Miller’s case expands the terrain on which workers, students and political organisations can act.

But a narrative victory does not automatically become a material one. The significance of this ruling will ultimately depend on whether the Palestine movement can convert this strategic opening into organisational and collective power.

On university campuses, we need to organise towards stronger challenges to institutional complicity, develop more coordinated divestment campaigns and strengthen our defence of workers and students who are punished for Palestine organising. In workplaces, we need to follow KCL UCL’s lead and not be afraid to test the boundaries imposed on political trade unionism.

Within the electoral sphere, we need to move beyond criticism of particular Israeli government policies or specific trade agreements and towards explicitly challenging Zionism itself.

While narratives shape the limits of political possibility, organisation determines whether those possibilities are realised. The Palestine solidarity movement’s success in shifting public discourse from occupation and apartheid towards settler colonialism and Zionism has opened political terrain that once appeared fringe.

Miller’s case is one institutional expression of the narrative shift that our movement has worked hard to realise. The task now is to use the space it has created to translate changing consciousness into material consequences for the institutions that sustain the Zionist project.

Jeanine Hourani is a London-based writer and community organiser. She’s a PhD candidate in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter and a member of the Palestinian Youth Movement.

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of their employer, or of The New Arab and its editorial board or staff.