The mobilization was so large that it opened a political crisis in the government.

It was the largest pro-Palestinian demonstration in the country’s history, attended by young people and workers, some of whom even traveled long distances to participate. The action took place on a large scale despite the fact that the country’s two major political parties – Conservative and Labor – opposed the demonstration.

But the crisis occurred after the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, published an article in The Times newspaper questioning whether London police had not banned the demonstration, which she described as a “pro-Palestinian mob,” while suggesting smaller demonstrations. “other groups”, a veiled reference to right-wing demonstrations.

Braverman is a conservative right-wing figure, whose political profile has been built primarily on his dehumanizing proposals towards immigrants, such as proposing that they live as refugees on boats or deporting them directly to Rwanda.

In previous campaigns, Braverman had joined conservative groups in condemning the call, which he called a “hate march.” However, despite the massive turnout, the mobilization was peaceful. Instead, the “riot” was carried out by a small but violent right-wing group that called for a “reply march” but did not produce results, but was accompanied by violent demonstrations.

After a historic show of solidarity with Palestine, Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had no choice but to sack Braverman – the second time he has been sacked from the same position – and reorganize his cabinet. As part of this reconfiguration, former Prime Minister David Cameron made a surprise return to government as foreign secretary.

It is clear that Sunak – who is 100% aligned with the US in his support for Israel – did not sack Braverman for supporting the mobilization in support of the Palestinian people, but simply for being backed into a corner after the overwhelming popular support and solidarity of the British people.

A separate paragraph for the failure of the reactionary Labor Party, which not only opposes mobilization but essentially shares the same position as its Conservative “rivals”, refusing to call for a ceasefire, supporting Israel’s “right to self-defense” and aligning itself nuancelessly with cynical White House proposals and it is hypocritical to institute a “humanitarian pause.”

This shift in the Labor Party also resulted in various elements of internal crisis, reflected in more than 30 councilors from various cities with a significant Muslim composition who broke away from the party and continued to hold their seats as independents due to their pro-genocide policies regarding Palestine, in some case with group resignation.

include(“subscription.php”); echo “HELLO WORLD”;?>