I'm not in support of what the Green Party have done there but arguing countries shouldn't exist is common and acceptable discourse where that country is a colony which exists through violence and racism. Rhodesia was abolished, for example.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Green Party of England and Wales now under Zack Polanski
- Thread starter AY1975
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I find this quite interesting actually. On the one hand figures like Benjamin Netanyahu have committed multiple human rights violations against the Palestinian people in pursuit of a Jewish ethnostate, so in that respect I can totally see why one might be tempted to call Zionism a form of racism. On the other hand it seems that the Green Party have swung the other way in that there must only be room for full democratic Palestinian state (if there is to be a truly sovereign Palestine it should be ran how the Palestinians see fit, democratic or not).Yeah this is going to be counterproductive, regardless of intentions:
Green Party members back 'Zionism is racism' conference motion
The vote has caused divisions among figures at the top of the party at its conference in Brighton.www.bbc.co.uk
Vexed
Member
Indeed, I felt a little sorry for her when I read she didn't support the Zionism vote. The party is very different from when it was under her stewardship.
One of my friend's parents has previously stood as a Green Party candidate but isn't even a member now because of the new direction.
I know you're (explicitly) not defending the Green Party's position, but I do find Polanski's response to this line of questioning to be pretty glib, reminding me a bit of Corbyn's intellectual posturing.
Responding to the question of "does country X have a right to exist" with the smug/supposedly profound "does any country have a right to exist?" is absolute midwit sophistry. If he wants to put forth the argument you are suggesting then he should own it.
OhNoAPacer
Member
Rhodesia still exists, just under another name. There is a difference between wanting a change of government or system of government and actually saying a UN recognised country shouldn't exist.
What is the difference between a country not existing and its physical territory being replaced by a different regime, in your view? It's a sincere question, not a trap. Do all of Britain's racist colonies still exist? Is it problematic for the SDLP or Sinn Fein to say Northern Ireland shouldn't exist?
We are allowed to think countries ought to exist or not exist, as a fundamental principle.
(I'll repeat the Green Party should not have passed these motions because they are problematic and unhelpful and I would have voted against both if I was a member.)
No country has an inherent right to exist. All countries maintain their existence, and set their borders, through diplomacy and/or force of arms. Sometimes there are changes. These changes are sometimes peaceful, often not.
OhNoAPacer
Member
I Am not denying grey areas exist. In the case of say Sinn Fein they don't argue that the UK shouldn't exist but rather that it shouldn't still contain Northern Ireland.
The difference I guess is that a regime can always be changed again whereas it is a lot more difficult to regain the status of a sovereign nation.
It is one thing to prefer a different government was in place in another country, another to actively attempt to change that government and a whole world different if you seek to obliterate a country.
That is a view that needs serious guardrails in place. Saying that a particular country has no right to exist and it doesn't matter what means are used to stop it existing is a very dangerous place to be.
No, they're arguing Northern Ireland shouldn't exist. They don't even say the name of the state. Being glib and saying "ah well we got you there, what they're saying is that it *will* exist, just uhhhhh absorbed into another state" doesn’t change the facts. The position of Sinn Fein and other nationalist parties is that the existence of Northern Ireland is a historical mistake and it must end, with the peoples and territory joining another state. Entirely legitimate and mainstream position.
Why does that equate to a state's de facto right to exist?
Nobody is suggesting literally obliterating a country, just that it be returned to the people ethnically cleansed from it, or for it to be replaced by a better and more just solution. In principle it is little different to native people in the Americas saying they'd like their land back. And if you apply the principle of "obliteration" then where does that leave you with Israel's legitimacy? It's a colony of settlers who ethnically cleansed people who lived there (and who continue to do so).
In your view Rhodesia still exists. It doesn't. Rhodesia was a racist white colony and it was replaced by Zimbabwe which has, well, its own problems, run by absolutely different people of a different race and philosophy entirely.
Who is saying the latter part? The Green Party aren't.
The buried lede is of course that Israel is different; people shouldn't be allowed to have opinions like "Israel is problematic" "Israel is an apartheid ethnostate" "Israel demands the consent of the West and its security guarantees to continue to exist" because there are also a load of vile antisemites who will build on this language and treat it as a permissive environment to suggest appalling outcomes. And, there is something in this and it's why I think the Green Party's motions are, to put it diplomatically, "unhelpful".
I will be very happy to allow anyone on the right to have this point about language and permissive environments as long as they apply it consistently to soft bigotries the right has about other minorities. I suspect they won't like that.
Does any country have a "right" to exist?
JohnofWessex
Member
Following the collapse of the Berlin Wall several European countries 'ceased to exist' The DDR, Czechoslovakia, The USSR & Yugoslavia.
Not perhaps in the way that it is called for the State of Israel to cease to exist but they did cease to exist.
I would suggest that the existence of the State of Israel has always been 'problematic' the challenge to its Governments and Politics has perhaps been with hindsight not to act in a way that highlights the issues that its existence raises. Unfortunately for the State f Israel however they have failed in that task and are now reaping the whirlwind.
Not perhaps in the way that it is called for the State of Israel to cease to exist but they did cease to exist.
I would suggest that the existence of the State of Israel has always been 'problematic' the challenge to its Governments and Politics has perhaps been with hindsight not to act in a way that highlights the issues that its existence raises. Unfortunately for the State f Israel however they have failed in that task and are now reaping the whirlwind.
It's quite useful for the Green Party to exist though. Imagine having more of Greens in the two parties that take turns in running the country.
But that isn't what the Greens' policy is.
I suspect the misinterpretation of what Zionism is to feature heavily for a few months now though.
OhNoAPacer
Member
Oh absolutely there was an article I saw on The Guardian site by a columnist making the point that this resolution by the green party essentially tells Jewish people what they think.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What this whole thing shows is how Polanski is reaping the populist whirlwind he showed. He wanted the conference delayed in order to concentrate on the by election, it wasn't. He wanted the 'zionist' motion amended, it wasn't. He didn't stay for the vote and went off campaigning. He now has to defend a policy that 4 out 5 green mps don't support, 1 or the 2 joint deputy leaders don't support and that Caroline Lucas doesn't support. I suspect I He loses the by election then his leadership is in real trouble.
Last edited:
SargeNpton
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,755
Are those settlers not just the descendants of people who were themselves ethnically cleansed from the same land by Saracen invaders hundreds of years ago?
How far back do you go - who lived there before the Israelites arrived from Egypt ?
SargeNpton
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,755
How far back you go to right historic wrongs is a moot point that is outside of the scope of this thread.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think the Greens will return to obscurity now. Burnham is proving popular and will take the more moderate left of centre vote back to Labour, so Polanski will only be able to appeal to the more extreme left vote once again.
Gareth1990
Member
The question that Pro-Pali’s never answer is how are you going to dismantle a nuclear armed nation, one that will use them per the Samson Option if Israel is under any kind of existential threat?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The reality of it as both sides fail to accept is that two peoples have some level of legitimate claim to the same land, so the only way there can be peace is compromise. As long as compromise isn't accepted by either side, the only thing there can be, sadly, is war.
Purple Train
Established Member
Agreed. Which is why this motion is a massive misstep, to put it mildly.
This is definitely the end of the mainstream appeal of the Greens. A lot of their votes in the last election were transactional, including mine. I can imagine many people are very put off by the disconnect between party and leader. Polanski cannot sell this stance and people kmow he does not believe in it.
I think it's just typical of socially left parties. For as long as I've taken an interest in politics, Israel-Palestine has been the focus of dare I say a disproportionate level of interest by left wing groups, from capital P political parties like the Greens to trade unions to the NUS. The Greens' conference has been dominated by discussion over this motion, a stance which either way Netanyahu isn't going to change his course of action based on, rather than the things voters will rate as their top 5 or top 10 concerns. I remember being at an NUS conference over a decade ago where we spent hours debating the topic rather than all the things students were saying were a concern like mental health, anonymous marking, tuition fees, living costs, contact hours on social sciences courses, lecture recording, grading systems, etc.
No matter what stance you take on it you alienate a lot of people and to those without such a strong opinion they just see you as wasting your time talking about things which just don't affect them. That's not to say parties should've have a stance on Israel-Palestine but it shouldn't overshadow an entire party conference spanning multiple days and take all the media attention away from things your party can actually influence.
No matter what stance you take on it you alienate a lot of people and to those without such a strong opinion they just see you as wasting your time talking about things which just don't affect them. That's not to say parties should've have a stance on Israel-Palestine but it shouldn't overshadow an entire party conference spanning multiple days and take all the media attention away from things your party can actually influence.
yoyothehobo
Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 860
I really would like to know what the Green party members who voted for this think it will achieve? Is it to feel good, whilst diminishing the party? It screams of university politics.
It reminds me of this:
(Image of the simpsons where Principal Skinner annouces he is in a relationship with Edna Krabappel and Willie says he hears them and doesnt care)
It reminds me of this:
(Image of the simpsons where Principal Skinner annouces he is in a relationship with Edna Krabappel and Willie says he hears them and doesnt care)
It's almost like I didn't make the post 6 above from yours!
When interviewers ask if Israel has a right to exist, they are not seeking an abstract philosophical discussion about whether states have rights, i.e. a change of subject disguised as a more profound question. It's asking the concrete question of whether the respondent believes that Israel as a state should cease to exist.
I do actually have time for a principled argument that Israel should not (although I disagree because I think it would lead to even more bloodshed). But people should make that argument on its merits and save the philosophy for somewhere else.
Gareth1990
Member
There is no question about if Israel has the right to exist, It does now, it has won every war waged to destroy it and probably has more nukes than we do, it’s staying and people need to get used to it
Who knows that they think it'll achieve, but for Netanyahu and his government it will have approximately 0.00% impact, as does most of the pro-Palestine / Anti-Israeli protesting. It's just another virtue signal for an issue that is vastly complex, and will not be solved by lots of flag waving and shouting from people thousands of miles away.
Then they should ask the concrete question directly.
OhNoAPacer
Member
The Green Party has entered an omnicause phase. There is now an orthodoxy with clear this side right that side wrong rules. It is typical of what tends to happen when the unthinking left gets to set policy in a party. Every answer is simple, no flexibility is allowed and pragmatism is akin to heresy.