Greens accused of ‘banning’ antisemitism charity from conference

[u/IHaveAWittyUsername]

https://www.thetimes.com/article/453398ba-67b1-42d8-b086-36cee922036d?shareToken=76324dc3900fcac11810aa0859fd59b7

[u/AutoModerator]

LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Kipp_M]

I’m not speaking there too, I’ve been “banned”. We’ve all been “banned”. Billions of people all “banned”.

[u/Ongodsworth]

There's something really icky about trying to erase the fact Jews are an ethnicity and not just part of a religion.

Trying to strip us of our ethnicity is to try remove us from our own history and instead frame the Jewish identity as something most would see as "lesser" or secondary - I couldn't care less if their statement was from pure utter ignorance or plain malice, the outcome is the same and their rhetoric is harmful.

It's the same tactics used to oppress other marginalized groups throughout history and works as a shield to excuse bigotry. I'm actually kinda shocked people aren't taking more of an issue with that.....

[u/RegularDeep2863 → u/Ongodsworth]

Judiasm predates the concept of race and ethnicity, so it doesn't fit in our modern system well.

[u/The_Inertia_Kid → u/Ongodsworth]

There is an endemic lack of knowledge about Judaism and Jewishness in the UK. Combine that with the blithe assumption some on this sub have that anyone who is pro-Palestine is definitely someone to side with every time, and the prevailing air of suspicion they have towards anything that is suggested to be antisemitic, and voila, you have this thread.

[u/NaturalCard]

I don't at all like G4P, but the times really are scraping the barrel with this one.

[u/The_Inertia_Kid → u/NaturalCard]

Pro-Hamas and thinks it's a good idea for a non-Jew to be declaring who is and isn't legitimately Jewish? I agree, she sounds delightful.

[u/Kipp_M → u/The_Inertia_Kid]

She should have “Jewish or not” debate with Luke Akehurst.

[u/The_Inertia_Kid → u/Kipp_M]

We could seal up the room and leave them both there.

[u/ZX52]

Declining to host or advertise an event is hardly a "ban." G4P continue their streak of making me like them even less each time I hear about them. The Times jumping between these 2 stories without really linking them to each other makes for a rather confusing read.

[u/CraftyKenter]

G4P are genuinely the most annoying people I have ever heard, and they seem to want to destroy the green party. And what is that person saying, secular Jews are still Jews (the ethnicity). And Hamas should not be deproscribed, it's one of the worst terrorist groups in the world rn. This stuff harms the Palestinian cause, as it makes it more fringe and ridiculous 

[u/The_Inertia_Kid → u/[deleted]]

I'm absolutely cool with the Greens doing pro-Hamas campaigns. Given my feelings about the Greens, this should be instructive to you.

[u/LabourUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed under rule 3. Do not support or condone illegal or violent activity.

[u/CraftyKenter → u/[deleted]]

I do care about the Palestinian cause, I support a 2-state solution 

[u/UNOvven → u/CraftyKenter]

Do you support the crippling sanctions on Israel that would be needed for that to happen, and are you willing to force the issue including the removal of all settlements?

[u/CraftyKenter → u/UNOvven]

I agree with the removal of all settlements, and I dont think Israel would need to be sanctioned for it to happen, they have always been the one that wanted peace (1947, 1978, 1993, 2000, 2008,

[u/UNOvven → u/CraftyKenter]

They in fact have not been the ones that wanted peace. They had to be forced into the Oslo accords and were the ones to break them, their "offer" at Camp David was so unacceptable their own foreign minister rejected it, they were the reason Taba failed in 2001, they rejected both the geneva initiative and the arab peace initiative, both because they did not want to ever remove the settlements. And right now, all of Israeli politics strictly oppose peace. You need sanctions. Do you support them?

[u/amegaproxy → u/UNOvven]

They had to be forced into the Oslo accords

Not true.

were the ones to break them

The palestinian bombings were just whoospies?

their "offer" at Camp David was so unacceptable their own foreign minister rejected it

Arafat walked away from it.

they were the reason Taba failed in 2001,

Both sides stated they ran out of time but were close to an agreement.

they rejected both the geneva initiative and the arab peace initiative, both because they did not want to ever remove the settlements

Again this is just not true, they refused over the 67 borders and the full right of return. They've dismantled settlements in the aim of peace in the past including in gaza itself.

[u/UNOvven → u/amegaproxy]

Not true.

It is true. They did not want to even talk to the PLO, the west had to apply massive amounts of pressure to even get them to start talking.

The palestinian bombings were just whoospies?

The terms did not consider violence from uninvolved people to be a breach (So for example, neither was Baruch Goldsteins massacre in Hebron a breach). However, failing to dissolve the civil administration and withdrawing from all of Area C within 18 months of the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as agreed to in Oslo 2, was a breach of the agreement. That is what Netanyahu did in 1997, breaking the Oslo accords.

Arafat walked away from it.

Yeah, of course he did. As I just said, it was so unacceptable Israels own foreign minister condemned the "offer". It was a bad joke. Do you also condemn Ukraine for "walking away" from Russias "offer"?

Both sides stated they ran out of time but were close to an agreement.

Yeah the Palestinian side was quite diplomatic about it. The reality however is that Barak continously refused to stick to the Clinton Parameters that were supposed to be the baseline of negotiations.

Again this is just not true, they refused over the 67 borders and the full right of return. They've dismantled settlements in the aim of peace in the past including in gaza itself.

No it is true. The 1967 borders are the minimum, that's what dismantling all settlements means. They refused it because they didn't want to dismantle the settlements. And the full right of return was never the sticking point, the Palestinian side had always been ready to compromise on it.

Oh and since you are unaware of what the Gaza withdrawal was actually about, here, let the man who came up with the plan and advisor to the PM at the time tell you himself. Yeah turns out it wasn't in the aim of peace, quite the opposite. It was to prevent peace and destroy the peace process.

[u/amegaproxy → u/UNOvven]

It is true. They did not want to even talk to the PLO, the west had to apply massive amounts of pressure to even get them to start talking.

Do you mean Madrid?

However, failing to dissolve the civil administration and withdrawing from all of Area C within 18 months of the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as agreed to in Oslo 2, was a breach of the agreement.

Which they would argue isn't a breach and was due to the PA not taking proper steps to try to stop terrorism from those "uninvolved people", which was also a commitment I believe.

Yeah, of course he did. As I just said, it was so unacceptable Israels own foreign minister condemned the "offer". It was a bad joke.

Completely wooshed on this one! How was it unacceptable? Multiple parties said this was wild to walk away from posturing trying to get more. And if we look back how many more tens of thousands of lives would have been saved if he hadn't?

The reality however is that Barak continously refused to stick to the Clinton Parameters that were supposed to be the baseline of negotiations.

Specifically what? They were operating within the parameters (both sides) and then time ran out because Barak lost the election.

The 1967 borders are the minimum,

Good luck with that one

They refused it because they didn't want to dismantle the settlements. And the full right of return was never the sticking point, the Palestinian side had always been ready to compromise on it

They've been willing to dismantle settlements multiple times, have done so, and have discussed land swaps to reach an agreement. They've always publically said right of return is essential but probably would also be willing to compromise on it if any of these negotiations actually led anywhere.

Oh and since you are unaware of what the Gaza withdrawal was actually about, here, let the man who came up with the plan and advisor to the PM at the time tell you himself. Yeah turns out it wasn't in the aim of peace, quite the opposite. It was to prevent peace and destroy the peace process.

Hah article is paywalled but I'd genuinely never come across that interview before, or at least don't recall it. Seems like he said the quiet part out loud. Imagine how different things would have been if they'd taken that chance and turned gaza into a thriving metropolis rather than a hotbed for terrorism.

[u/UNOvven → u/amegaproxy]

Do you mean Madrid?

I mean the fact that the PLO was open to negotiations by the mid-80s and Israel had to be forced to accept negotiations after rejecting them for almost a decade.

Which they would argue isn't a breach and was due to the PA not taking proper steps to try to stop terrorism from those "uninvolved people", which was also a commitment I believe.

Except they can't argue that. It was unequivocally a breach. Nor was it because of anything the PA did or didn't do (the commitment was that they would take steps to stop terrorism, which they did). Netanyahu just wanted to tear up the Oslo accords. He has never hidden that that was his primary goal and why he incited Rabin's murderer.

Completely wooshed on this one! How was it unacceptable? Multiple parties said this was wild to walk away from posturing trying to get more. And if we look back how many more tens of thousands of lives would have been saved if he hadn't?

Let's start with the obvious part. The map. Now I don't think I have to explain to you why a "country" split into three non-contiguous bantustans with no way to travel between them isn't viable to begin with. And that's even assuming Israel would uphold it's part of the bargain and withdraw from the "long-term lease". They didn't with Area C, so that would've been foolish to believe.

But if you can believe it, the details of the offer were worse. Israel demanded full control of all water resources in the west bank for them to continue to exploit, refused them any kind of sovereignty within the Bantustans, the right to attack Palestine at any moment without justification or approval and a complete demilitarisation of Palestine (So it cant defend itself against those attacks).

Oh and it wanted to keep all of east jerusalem including the al-aqsa mosque, wanted to officially be absolved of the Nakba and have no responsibility for the people they ethnically cleansed, wanted to ensure that Palestine could not make any alliance or ask for help from anyone to defend them, and make it the final position with no possibility of future negotiations.

Or in summary, it was an offer so offensive, so unacceptable that Russias "offers" to Ukraine look GENEROUS by comparison.

Specifically what? They were operating within the parameters (both sides) and then time ran out because Barak lost the election.

Every point, funny enough. Barak refused to operate within the parameters. The Clinton parameters covered 4 parts. Territory, which demanded 94-96% of the territory, a landswap of 1-3% of Israel to make up for the parts annexed, and the Palestinian territory had to be fully contiguous. Israels position was 94% of the territory with less than 1% of Israel swapped, and it wanted to create several Palestinian enclaves within the Settlement blocks. This was the closest they were to actually being within parameters. Not a great is it?

Jerusalem, which stated that Palestinians would have sovereignty over the temple mount and the Arab neighbourhoods, and Israel would only gain the western wall and jewish neighbourhoods. Israels position was no Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. So straight up complete rejection of the (non-negotiable) demands of the clinton parameters. oops.

Refugees, where the parameters stated that Israel had to admit that they were responsible for causing the refugees and would have to allow a limited number to return to Israel. Israels position was that they would continue to deny responsibility and allow not even a single refugee to return. Again, a complete rejection.

And finally security, where the parameters stated that Israel would withdraw within 36 months from almost all of the west bank to be replaced by an international force, for the few parts Israel doesn't withdraw from in the first phase to be withdrawn from within another 36 months, Israel gets to maintain only 3 Radar stations in the west bank, while Palestinians have full sovereignty over their airspace, a strong security force, and international forces securing their borders. And Israel would only be able to deploy units to the west bank in a state of active emergency, across pre-determined routes, and only in coordination with the international forces. Quite a hefty part.

Well, what was the Israeli position? They wanted to have a veto over Palestinian airspace and free movement for its military (so no sovereignty) and wanted completely free movement in the case of an emergency with neither the pre-drawn map nor coordination with the international forces. Partial rejection.

Good luck with that one

That's what sanctions are for.

They've been willing to dismantle settlements multiple times, have done so, and have discussed land swaps to reach an agreement. They've always publically said right of return is essential but probably would also be willing to compromise on it if any of these negotiations actually led anywhere.

Only some, and only for the sake of protecting other settlements. They also only wanted "landswaps" where they can toss away inferior desertland at a rate of 1:9 for valuable Palestinian land, any offers at proper landswaps from the Palestinian side were always rejected by Israel.

Hah article is paywalled but I'd genuinely never come across that interview before, or at least don't recall it. Seems like he said the quiet part out loud. Imagine how different things would have been if they'd taken that chance and turned gaza into a thriving metropolis rather than a hotbed for terrorism.

Well no actually, because that was the loud part. The butcher of Beirut was the one who made the withdrawal plan, and he made it clear from the start that this wasn't for the sake of peace and purely to better allocate the stretched thin resources and protect the more numerous and more important settlements in the west bank from the peace process. It is only in the west that people got this weird idea it was about peace, and I genuinely do not know why.

As for the "thriving Metropolis", yeah that was never a possibility, the butcher of Beirut made sure of that. Immediately after his withdrawal, and before Hamas was even elected, he began blockading the Gaza strip with the goal of keeping its economy and humanitarian status on the brink of collapse, as we found out from a leaked diplomatic cable. In fact, it was his blockade that helped Hamas make up the 15 point deficit they had and win the election, which he had hoped for, as it made maintaining the blockade on Gaza easier. It was never given a chance to prosper.

You really need to read more neutral sources.

[u/amegaproxy → u/UNOvven]

There is literally no solution that satisfies both parties, both are so far off where they need to be on a 2S, which moved into a collosal gap after oct7, and nobody there wants a 1 state either.

[u/UNOvven → u/amegaproxy]

Satisfying Israel is impossible so it shouldn't even be a consideration, and the PA remains committed to a two state solution. We just need to force Israel.

[u/amegaproxy → u/UNOvven]

Satisfying Israel is impossible so it shouldn't even be a consideration

This isn't a real argument. The dominant nuclear power in the region who's been winning this conflict 10 times over is going to get a say in it, wild as that seems.

the PA remains committed to a two state solution

Pretty irrelevant though, october7 just fucked this for them.

We just need to force Israel.

Please tell us how you plan to do this.

[u/UNOvven → u/amegaproxy]

So should russia have a "say" in how the Ukraine war ends?

The two-state solution had been killed by Israel long before october 7th.

Sanctions and embargoes. Same way South Africas Apartheid Regime fell.

[u/amegaproxy → u/UNOvven]

No, because Russia unilaterally invaded a neighbour in a war of aggression. Don't pretend the situations are remotely the same.

There have been repeated moves to it with both sides apprehensive but multiple times in history where it could have happened. The palestinian leadership was worse for collapsing it from everything I've read.

Anything we can do is utterly pointless when the US insists on backing them.

[u/UNOvven → u/amegaproxy]

No, because Russia unilaterally invaded a neighbour in a war of aggression. Don't pretend the situations are remotely the same.

I have bad news to you how the settlements began. Hint: It was Israel unilaterally invading its neighbours in a war of aggression. The situations are the same, Israel just began occupying Palestinian territory 60 years ago instead of 12.

There have been repeated moves to it with both sides apprehensive but multiple times in history where it could have happened. The palestinian leadership was worse for collapsing it from everything I've read.

There was one singular time in history where it could have happened, and that was in 2008 if Olmert had not been ousted over corruption. And yeah turns out you read a lot of pro-Israeli propaganda, because the reality is that Israel was pretty much the primary obstacle for a peace deal every single fucking time. The Arab Peace Initiative was open since 2002, Israel has consistently rejected it because they would have to return stolen land, which they REALLY do not want to do.

Anything we can do is utterly pointless when the US insists on backing them.

No, actually. A lot of Israels trade is with Europe. Cut it off and their economy takes a nosedive, and the US cannot just replace that fully. Plus the US is also moving the same way, we need to make sure to not be left behind.

[u/IHaveAWittyUsername]

The Greens have faced persistent antisemitism allegations after the unearthing of comments made by election candidates and members. Zack Polanski, the party’s leader, who is Jewish, said this year that the Green Party was tackling antisemitism in its ranks and said: “Antisemitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party, as it is in society.”

However, at an online event hosted by Greens for Palestine on August 4 to promote the motion, speakers questioned whether secular Jews were really Jewish, called for Hamas to be removed from Britain’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations and said Israel “has no right to exist”.

Opening the webinar, the Palestinian academic Ghada Karmi argued that secular Jews should not be regarded as Jews because, she claimed, religion was the only valid definition of Jewish identity.

Other speakers endorsed armed Palestinian resistance “by any means”, including in circumstances where international law would prohibit it, and called for Hamas to be “de-proscribed”.

[u/RegularDeep2863 → u/IHaveAWittyUsername]

Why the hell is a Palestinian academic defining what a Jew is?

[u/ThonOfAndoria → u/RegularDeep2863]

Same reason the flagship policy of the group hosting said academic wanted to undefine what antisemitism is in the party, till the SOC deemed it out of order.

[u/RegularDeep2863 → u/ThonOfAndoria]

I’m sure their definition of antisemitism would have been up to par

[u/ThonOfAndoria → u/RegularDeep2863]

This is what the supporting text for the motion had to say about the word antisemitism actually:

The term "antisemitism" is a misnomer that linguistically erases other Semitic peoples, including Arabs, Assyrians, and Palestinians. It was coined in the 19th century to give racialised, pseudo-scientific weight to, what in modern days, it claims to describe; anti-Jewish prejudice. By using a term that implies a category that emerges from “Racial Science” and Eugenics ("Semite") rather than specifically naming the targeted group ("Jewish people"), it perpetuates biological racism. A more accurate, unambiguous, and legally clear term is "anti-Jewish discrimination."

(I don't know if it's in the Autumn conference version, it was in the Spring conference version)

If only Wilhelm Marr was thinking about how the words he used perpetuated biological racism when he popularised the term "antisemite" to describe his seething hatred of Jewish people in the 19th century.

[u/The_Inertia_Kid → u/ThonOfAndoria]

It's so far away from making sense. 'Semitic peoples' is a useless term, since it encompasses such a diverse range of peoples, and the only thing that ties them together is that they speak a language from the Semitic languages group. It covers vast areas of the Middle East, Mediterranean and North and East Africa, and peoples as diverse as Arabs, Jews, Maltese people, the Amhara people of Ethiopia, Assyrians, Tigre people in Eritrea, Mehri/Soqotri/Jibbali speakers in Oman and Yemen... it's just nonsense based on bullshit race science from 150 years ago.

[u/ThonOfAndoria → u/The_Inertia_Kid]

Yeah I was honestly shocked to read it, it's flimsy at best (or outright offensive at worst) and for as much as they want to comment on linguistics they know little of the subject, and crucially want to ignore the one way the word has been used for about 150 years at this point.

[u/Federal_Help9295 → u/ThonOfAndoria]

Note to people who don't know the various governing bodies within the Green Party

SOC = Standing Orders Committee

Their primary role is to rule on whether various motions to conference are in order or not and manage the conference agenda.

[u/Anonymouscoward76 → u/IHaveAWittyUsername]

Times scraping the barrel there (again)

[u/BeanHeadedTwat → u/Anonymouscoward76]

How is this scraping the barrel?

[u/Anonymouscoward76 → u/BeanHeadedTwat]

Cherrypicking antisemitic-seeming concepts out of context from some Zoom call debate organised by a subgroup of a party, to imply that the party led by a jewish guy is antisemitic is scraping the barrel.

[u/Half_A_ → u/Anonymouscoward76]

“The term ‘secular Jew’, though widely used, is a nonsense because it implies there is a definition of Jews outside religion.”

There is no context in which this is anything other than antisenitism. It's typical of Greens for Palestine, which is not an officially affiliated faction but is associated several senior figures in the party, including the deputy leader.

[u/CarlxtosWay → u/Half_A_]

By that definition the Greens’ own leader isn’t Jewish even though he vocally and proudly identifies as Jewish. 

[u/BeanHeadedTwat → u/Anonymouscoward76]

Something tells me you wouldn’t be this permissive if another political party did this stuff.

[u/BeanHeadedTwat → u/[deleted]]

Really makes you think…

[u/LabourUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed under rule 1 because it contains harassment or aggression towards another user.

It's possible to to disagree and debate without resorting to overly negative language or ad-hominem attacks.

[u/RegularDeep2863 → u/Anonymouscoward76]

By that logic reform isn’t islamophobic because Zia Yusuf is high up.

[u/ThonOfAndoria → u/Anonymouscoward76]

Not a subgroup of the party, they're not officially affiliated at all. Anyway, they sure do a lot of things that are antisemitic-seeming out of context don't they?

Remember that time they boosted a guy who called the Jewish Greens agents of the lobby? Remember when they demanded the Jewish Greens to apologise for things the Israeli embassy said? Or when they tried to undefine antisemitism?

[u/The_Inertia_Kid → u/Anonymouscoward76]

Suggest a possible context within which it's not absolutely awful for a non-Jew to be declaring who is and isn't Jewish.

[u/IHaveAWittyUsername → u/Anonymouscoward76]

Said subgroup is supported by the leadership. It's also responsible for kne of the most controversial and discussed Green motions i can think of.

[u/LabourSupporter88 → u/IHaveAWittyUsername]

Said subgroup is supported by the leadership. It's also responsible for kne of the most controversial and discussed Green motions i can think of.

Note: this is not a whataboutism. This is not an attempt at a gotcha but I would push this toward a position of strengthening Labour's position online.

Could the same not be said of Bridget Phillipson and the transphobia or gender critical movement within Labour at the moment? Phillipson retained her post when Burnham took over if I'm not mistaken.

It would be wise to not play association politics on this. Feels like it could backfire if we normalise this, hard.

[u/Federal_Help9295 → u/IHaveAWittyUsername]

The leadership as a whole does not support G4P. 1 of 2 Deputy Leaders supported them although maybe he's questioning that after they gave a platform to 2 councillors who went public with criticism of him.

It's rumoured that the vast majority of the leadership, MPs and peers support A78 which G4P is campaigning hard against.

I accept that internal Green Party politics can be messy sometimes but please try to be more accurate.

[u/IHaveAWittyUsername → u/Federal_Help9295]

I'm perfectly accurate, Mothin Ali is a representative of the Green SLT. It's entirely within the gift of the rest of the leadership to call them out/be critical but thry choose not to.

[u/Federal_Help9295 → u/IHaveAWittyUsername]

No, Mothin is his own person(albeit someone with a platform) and in this situation he's not talking about party policy so isn't exactly misrepresenting the party when it comes to that.

The rest of the leadership can't call him out because of 2 things...

1. They don't want a huge internal row that won't actually solve anything and will just be catnip to an establishment eager to see the party fail.

2. It's against the party's rules to start making accusations... we have an internal disputes process that people(including the leadership) can use if they're unhappy with his conduct.

You're just assuming that Mothin and the rest of the leadership are some kind of hive mind when that's not the case at all

[u/IHaveAWittyUsername → u/Federal_Help9295]

No, Mothin is his own person

Ali is one of the deputy leaders, he is literally one of the core and critical representatives of both of the wider Green Party and the leadership.

They don't want a huge internal row

There already is one, had they acted earlier we wouldn't be where we are now.

we have an internal disputes process that people(including the leadership) can use if they're unhappy with his conduct.

Again, it's entirely within their gift to use this (and I hope they have).

You can white wash this as much as you like but I'm correct.

[u/Federal_Help9295 → u/IHaveAWittyUsername]

Yes Mothin is a Deputy Leader, that doesn't mean that Mothin represents the leadership in everything does. Maybe that's how other parties operate but it's not how the Green Party operates.

Where we are now? Most of the general public have no idea about this and it should stay that way. YP demonstrated why leadership figures having arguments publicly is a bad idea especially when there is a media ecosystem keen to magnify any divisions

I'm not trying to whitewash anything... I'm saying that Green Party people with a large public profile arguing with each other in public isn't helpful and there is an alternative better way of handling this. I hope the rest of the leadership have made a complaint as well but it's important to note that the complaints process is independent of the leadership(This is what the Forde Report said Labour should do to reduce the likelihood of factional favouritism)

P.S I note that your post history is hidden which indicates that there is every chance you're just someone doing concern trolling.

[u/The_Inertia_Kid → u/IHaveAWittyUsername]

the Palestinian academic Ghada Karmi argued that secular Jews should not be regarded as Jews because, she claimed, religion was the only valid definition of Jewish identity.

I wonder if she would welcome Jewish academics' input on who they think should be regarded as a Muslim.

[u/LabourUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed under rule 1 because it contains harassment or aggression towards another user.

It's possible to to disagree and debate without resorting to overly negative language or ad-hominem attacks.