Jewish Greens are divided on the issue, although one of those proposing the motion was Holocaust survivor Stephen Kapos. Andy Burnham has taken the Zionist line in declaring the motion to be antisemitic, although it’s his conflation of Judaism and Zionism that is really antisemitic. Curtis Daly of Turn Left rightly points out the hypocrisy of supporting proportional representation while ruling out co -operation with the Greens because of one issue. Hopefully Labour councillors will ignore him when it comes to important local issues. I foresee him needing a coalition partner if he’s to stay in power after the next general election and may have to go begging to the LibDems, who have taken the same stance.
I am ruling out our party entering into a national partnership with any party that is committed to a dangerous and antisemitic policy like the Green Party’s.
Ed Davey
The usual suspects in the ‘mainstream’ media, which is becoming increasingly marginalised by independent journalists on Substack and YouTube, would have us believe that the motion is itself racist. They ignore a recent court decision that anti-Zionism is a protected philosophical belief. We are constantly telling those who equate Zionism and Judaism that not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews, but they refuse to listen!
Jonathan Cook notes that Palestinians are left out of the debate in British media despite their intimate experience of what Zionism is and what it does.
The media have sought out the small number of Jewish Greens who feel upset by the motion. Meanwhile, they have ignored those Jewish Greens who fervently support it, such as Holocaust survivor Stephen Kapos.
Jonathan Cook
It is not shameful that the Green Party adopted a motion equating Zionism with racism at its annual party conference at the weekend. What’s shameful is that no mainstream British political party did so earlier.
Jonathan Cook
Caroline Lucas thinks the decision was undemocratic because it didn’t reflect the views of the membership, the following poll proves her wrong! What is undemocratic is demanding a change in the decision-making process because you don’t like the result!
Claims that Jewish Greens who dissent from the motion, or worship as at a synagogue reputed to be Zionist, are completely fabricated.
Neither the Constitution nor the Code of Conduct impose an obligation on members to avoid involvement or membership in institutions which do not share its philosophical basis or policy positions. Claims of expulsion of those members who engage in religious practice are misinformation.
Greens4Palestine
Zack Polanski didn’t vote but this didn’t preventing him from being blamed by Israel, who have banned him from entering the country. He agrees with the motion but thinks it unhelpful as it impedes the prospect of a 2-state solution, as if such a solution was ever feasible. The alternatives are two 1-state solutions, one that gives Israel total control or one in which or one in which Israelis and Palestinians live together in peace. You may ask “doesn’t the latter require that Israel cease to exist?” Yes it does, and rightly so. Unlike the former it doesn’t require genocide as Israeli propaganda would have us believe. The claim that “it’s up to Palestinians to decide their own future” is an evasion, it’s meaningless unless we enable them to exercise a right that’s currently denied them!
Although I disagree with Zack’s position it is at least a principled one, unlike those who see it as likely to reduce Greens’ electoral chances. I see this attitude as both utterly contemptible and wrong! No politician who puts electability before principle deserves to be elected, we have more than enough of those already. As the only party to take a firm anti-Zionist policy it’s likely to attract more voters if we can overcome internal dissension.
If one party is allowed to offer voters a meaningful voice on Israel – and against genocide – where might that lead? If the Greens’ leader anti-Zionism proves a vote winner, might other political parties suddenly find a moral backbone too?
Jonathan Cook
Four of the five Green MPs opposed the motion, as is their right. Unlike other MPs, Greens do not apply the whip!
I don’t think this decision, or his failure to win the Holborn & St Pancras by-election, are a serious threat to Zack’s leadership, people in my network are solidly behind him! Critics from outside the party fail to understand that he can’t overturn the decision if he wanted to – like everyone else he has only one vote.
The corporate media are complicit in the pushback!
When a Green is invited to defend the “Zionism is Racism” motion, the guest is nearly always Ashok Kumar, and while he does an admirable job, he never gets shown the slightest bit of respect. He faces a bunch of people yelling at him about how racist he and his party are.
Ricky, Council Estate Media
Ashok Kumar of Greens for Palestine explained to Novara Media that the strategy behind the motion, which took a year to organize, was designed to expose Labour’s politics. Andy Burnham’s response reveals him as little different from Keir Starmer. The idea is to set the terms of debate, provoke a backlash, and heighten contradictions to force opponents to reveal positions. “We want to drag the paradigm to the left kicking and screaming.”
Framed in these terms, it’s certainly succeeded! It has put the cat among the pigeons and forced the leaders of other parties and media personalities to show their true colours. I’m hearing that schools will be obliged to indoctrinate children with Zionist propaganda and penalise students who display emblems showing support for Palestine. Enough is enough #VoteGreen ✊
Subscribe
Please click on the menu top right of the screen to subscribe to this blog, it costs nothing and ensures that you won’t miss a post. In some cases you’ll be able to read the blog as soon as it’s published and add a comment before I share it on Sunday.
