The problem is that there is more to the motion than its title, which is the same for most things, really. The problems with this motion include the insistence on a one state solution (against the expressed wishes of the Palestinian people) and a threat of wholesale proscription of Jewish communities.
I say this as a Green member - this motion overshadows really decent policy passed at this conference including two BDS motions. This is a highly controversial motion within the party and it was only carried over the line by entryists. 4/5 of our MPs opposed it as well as the leader and one of the deputy leaders.
If you want to understand things, you have to read past the headline. It’s the only way.
How do you imagine a two state solution working when one of those states is an ethnosupremacist theocracy? Are you just trying to delay any action being taken until every Palestinian has been cleansed, or do you believe an equal, multicultural Palestinian state is somehow discriminatory against Jews?
The problems with this motion include the insistence on a one state solution
Because only the most ignorant or naive think that being a separate nation protects anyone from the aggression of the West’s favorite fascist regime.
If you think being a neighboring country that isn’t aggressive towards Israel keeps you safe, you should have a word with someone from the Golan Heights or the part of Syria they RECENTLY started illegally occupying.
(against the expressed wishes of the Palestinian people)
Gonna need a source on that.
and a threat of wholesale proscription of Jewish communities.
That sounds like classic antisemitic conflating of Zionism and Jewdom, as well as ridiculous hyperbole. Specifics, please.
If you want to understand things, you have to read past the headline. It’s the only way.
I did. None of the things you claimed (other than 4/5 of the MPs being against it) were actually in the article afair from reading it last night.
As someone who hasn’t read the actual motion itself - sure, being a separate state doesn’t protect against Israel, but the issue seems to be that this motion insists on a one state solution.
Why?
Being a single state obviously doesn’t help. So what is the benefit? Why is it insisting on this?
Because a single state that doesn’t discriminate based on religion and ethnicity IS the only solution that could possibly create lasting peace.
As long as there’s a Jewish supremacist apartheid ethnostate on or next to their land, no Palestinian will be safe.
Being a single ethnostate with several ethnicities being oppressed by the dominant oneobviously doesn’t help
Fixed it for you. Like South Africa before it, the solution is to overthrow the tyrannical apartheid system of government, not portioning out a tiny parcel of land next to it that the overlords will always scapegoat and vilify.
So what is the benefit? Why is it insisting on this?
The problem is that there is more to the motion than its title, which is the same for most things, really. The problems with this motion include the insistence on a one state solution (against the expressed wishes of the Palestinian people) and a threat of wholesale proscription of Jewish communities.
I say this as a Green member - this motion overshadows really decent policy passed at this conference including two BDS motions. This is a highly controversial motion within the party and it was only carried over the line by entryists. 4/5 of our MPs opposed it as well as the leader and one of the deputy leaders.
If you want to understand things, you have to read past the headline. It’s the only way.
How do you imagine a two state solution working when one of those states is an ethnosupremacist theocracy? Are you just trying to delay any action being taken until every Palestinian has been cleansed, or do you believe an equal, multicultural Palestinian state is somehow discriminatory against Jews?
Because only the most ignorant or naive think that being a separate nation protects anyone from the aggression of the West’s favorite fascist regime.
If you think being a neighboring country that isn’t aggressive towards Israel keeps you safe, you should have a word with someone from the Golan Heights or the part of Syria they RECENTLY started illegally occupying.
Gonna need a source on that.
That sounds like classic antisemitic conflating of Zionism and Jewdom, as well as ridiculous hyperbole. Specifics, please.
I did. None of the things you claimed (other than 4/5 of the MPs being against it) were actually in the article afair from reading it last night.
As someone who hasn’t read the actual motion itself - sure, being a separate state doesn’t protect against Israel, but the issue seems to be that this motion insists on a one state solution.
Why?
Being a single state obviously doesn’t help. So what is the benefit? Why is it insisting on this?
Because a single state that doesn’t discriminate based on religion and ethnicity IS the only solution that could possibly create lasting peace.
As long as there’s a Jewish supremacist apartheid ethnostate on or next to their land, no Palestinian will be safe.
Fixed it for you. Like South Africa before it, the solution is to overthrow the tyrannical apartheid system of government, not portioning out a tiny parcel of land next to it that the overlords will always scapegoat and vilify.
See above.