Green Party to revisit boycott resolution at special meeting in Calgary in December

gpc announcement tinted

The Green Party of Canada (GPC) will convene a special general meeting of members in Calgary on December 3 and 4 to reconsider contentious resolutions adopted at its August convention, including a motion to support the movement to boycott Israel (called BDS). The email from Executive Director Emily McMillan also revealed that an internal survey of members appears to show that while boycotting Israel does not have majority support in the party, a significant minority (29%) of GPC members does approve of it. What happens next? read more….

The Green Party has been in an uproar since its convention which was held in Ottawa in early August. At issue is a vote to support BDS, the international call to boycott and apply sanctions against Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians.

The motion to support BDS was brought to the convention by GPC members concerned about human rights for Palestinians. Party leader Elizabeth May initially seemed to approve of having the issue go to a vote, but under attack by Israeli lobby groups later changed tack and devoted quite a bit of energy trying to head it off.

May seemed to have three main reasons for opposing the motion:

  • Firstly as a leader, she was not convinced that most GPC members would approve of BDS even if it was adopted by the convention.
  • Secondly, she was concerned over what impact adopting the resolution might have on the Green Party’s financial or electoral support.
  • And finally, while May says she agrees with the BDS demand to end the occupation, she may have a problem with the other 2 BDS demands (equality for non-Jews in Israel, and the right of return for the refugees) which challenge the idea of Israel as a state based on preference for Jews.

In any event, despite May’s efforts, the motion was duly adopted by a wide margin at the convention.May considered resigning, but the GPC leadership instead has called for a special meeting to reconsider “non-consensual” motions, including that on BDS.

Internal survey of members on BDS

The decision of the leadership was in part influenced by an internal GPC survey of members on their support for BDS taken immediately after the convention. Over 2000 GPC members participated, of whom about 29% (or about 600 people) indicated support for the resolution. However, 44% indicated they thought the motion should be repealed. Another 28% had a different opinion, not necessarily opposing the motion, but clearly uncomfortable with the fact that the motion had targeted Israel.

What path forward?

Many human rights activists in the party feel betrayed by the leadership. They argue that they followed the democratic process, and their motion was carried by a significant majority of delegates at the convention. (There had also been strong support expressed during an on-line vote prior to the convention.) So they feel that attempts by the party brass to undo the decision are highly irregular and undemocratic.

But on the other the GPC survey results seem to indicate that among the broad membership, there is much less support than the activists might have hoped.

How to move forward? Three broad options present themselves to GPC members interested in both environmental protection and promoting human rights for Palestinians.

  • The most obvious option is to continue to forge ahead, and try to win a second vote at the Calgary convention. This would entail encouraging as many activists as possible to attend the special convention and arguing that the party has already engaged in an open and democratic decisionmaking process. It is not clear that a second vote would pass, as the opposition to it will be better organized. This approach risks creating even more acrimony in the party.
  • A second option might be to accept some kind of “broadening” of the resolution. Based on the survey results (which may or may not be representative of the whole party), it would seem that a majority of members might be open to a resolution that commits the GPC to condemning all governments which ignore human rights and international law. While this does not specifically target Israel, it would not let Israel off the hook entirely either.
  • A third option might be to call for “putting aside” the emotionally charged resolution until the next regular convention of the GPC on condition that a longer term consensus building process of education and discussion be undertaken. Faced with a similar situation in 2012, the United Church of Canada decided to create a special commission to investigate the issue and report back. The commission, which included some church “heavy weights”, consulted with members across Canada and even visited Israel/Palestine. Its final report, which recommended a boycott of goods produced in the illegal settlements, formed the basis of church policy. (It did not, however, embrace the entire BDS program.)  This kind of approach would appear to be consistent with Elizabeth May’s call for a return to the GPC’s traditional consensus based decisionmaking.

GPC members who are interested in changing Canadian policy toward the issue of Palestinian human rights will have to decide which option is most promising. Whatever happens, it seems that the issue of Palestinian human rights will be up for discussion in the Green Party between now and December.

________________________________________________________

REMINDER: THERE IS STILL TIME TO WIN $1000 IN OUR ESSAY CONTEST!! A $1000 prize is available for the best essay by a Canadian under 30 on whether Canada should support BDS. Get more info by clicking on this link. Contest ends September 30th.

Do you want to support the educational work of Canada Talks Israel Palestine (CTIP)? Why not join? Or make a donation? Or learn more about what we do?  Contact us at membership.ctip@gmail.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 comments

  1. Problem is that familiarity with the issues by the mass of the rank and file of any organization typically lags behind those more actively engaged. The ranks as a whole also tend to be more loyal to the leadership and apt to follow its recommendations. This observation would seem to apply to the BDS dispute within the Green party. In any event, if the party constitution decrees that decision-making be by collective debate at a convention rather than by individual online balloting, the leaders should abide by the letter and spirit of the rule and not try to circumvent it when decisions go against them, as in this case.

    1. Leadership has the right to find a decision of membership morally offensive as much as anyone else. For example in the United States there is little doubt the broader membership of the Republican party and the delegates at the convention choose Donald Trump. That hasn’t stopped hundreds of Republican leaders from denouncing him as a racist, denouncing him as unqualified or denouncing his long history of financial scams as making him morally or intellectually unfit for the presidency and all but endorsing Hillary Clinton. This referendum is the alternative to leadership openly denouncing the party’s platform and pulling back from institutional support for the Greens. Leadership understands this motion is a fundamental transformation of the Green Party. If they remain in the party and support this motion they are going to be asked to defend it for years and possibly for the rest of their lives long after the underlying issue resolves. That’s not something you have any right to demand of them. That is a moral choice they have to make for themselves.

      I remember some older democrats during the 1970s being disqualified from consideration for cabinet offices or national leadership because of their support as young delegates of the KKK in the 1924 Democratic convention. These sorts of things don’t blow over even after the underlying issues have resolved. No one cared about urban Catholics assuming positions of leadership in 1976. But that didn’t mean the hard feelings were over.

      In the same way that many Republicans are simply not going to stand behind someone who calls ethnic Mexicans rapists and murders, many Canadians of good conscience are not going to stand behind a party platform that makes the same sort of claims about ethnic Israelis (Jews).
      I don’t think it is at all unreasonable for the leadership of an explicitly pro-civil rights party to be at least as appalled by racism as a party which is pro business and mostly inconsistent and indifferent to civil rights. That’s not a high bar.

      Republican membership nationwide are embarrassed by local party chairs with iron cross/88/imperial eagle tattoos. How do you think your typical Green is going to feel about it when BDS attracts that sort of lower level leadership? Republicans are embarrassed about the fact they may get 3% or less of the black vote 2016. How do you think your typical Green is going to feel when Jewish Canadians are being interviewed on television and they respond “it doesn’t matter if I agree with the Greens on most areas of policy. They hate my family I can’t vote for them”.

      BDS likes to inflame passions and thrives on opposition. BDS likes to provoke. They like to demonize people who are potential supporters to create a hardcore. Politicians don’t generally like any of those things.

      1. Cd-host

        Certainly the leadership has the right provided bylaws permit jt.

        None of the leadership has referred to it as morally offensive so I can’t be sure why you made that up. As the reasons given it shows that the major issue is the practical impact on the party in the political arena for taking a stand on tbe issue.

        If we don’t stand with the oppressed we are effectively aiding the oppressor. The GoI which has been found to have been committing flagrant violations of the 4th GC.

        It is morally offensivr to ignore these crimes and turn our backs on tbe Palestinian citizens.

  2. Here is a comment that fjwhite sent to me. He had trouble posting it.

    Here’s a copy of the comment I tried to post –
    Green Party’s Brexit? — Is the Green Party members’ call for a repeal of the BDS vote more a reflection of their fear of the loss of Ms. May as party leader than it is of a surprising Sept. 11 call for a repeal of the August 7 pro-BDS vote? The following chronology of recent events could reasonably support that interpretation.
    August 7 – GPC News Release — OTTAWA – “The (Green party’s) resolution process is very different from other parties. Members come up with resolutions independently. Neither the leader nor anyone in the executive of the party can reject resolutions that comply with submission guidelines, nor does the party know ahead of time what resolutions will come forward. This grassroots process is a testament to the democratic values of the party.” (Source: Canadian Press http://tinyurl.com/z33g8xr )
    August 7 – GPC adopts pro-BDS resolution
    August 8 – Mondoweiss — Canadian Greens back BDS — GPC leader Elizabeth May, the party’s only sitting member in Commons, opposed this weekend’s BDS resolution. “I would rather not, as leader, be leading a party that has endorsed BDS,” she stated during discussion of the resolution in committee. “This is a perfectly legitimate movement,” May said. “There is nothing illegal about it, and within the Charter of Rights of Freedoms. So, I am uncomfortable with the demonization of this movement. But there is for me, no question that there’s a better way to put pressure on Israel, bearing in mind the history of Israel; the fact that it’s, I think, a tactic that won’t work.” http://tinyurl.com/jtfdgxf
    August 8 – CBC — Jewish groups condemn Green Party for supporting Israeli boycott policy http://tinyurl.com/zyvxwpx
    August 10 – Globe and Mail — Elizabeth May taking time off to consider resigning as Green Party leader http://tinyurl.com/jbue8be
    August 11 — email to party members receive requesting “your thoughts on the BDS”, offering three options: Accept resolution as is; Repeal it; Neutralize it
    August 12 – CBC — Elizabeth May could quit as Green Party leader this month http://tinyurl.com/jc8uzpr
    August 22 – Elizabeth May says she will remain as leader in email to party members
    September 2 – GPC email with member survey results supporting a repeal of the BDS resolution.

  3. Peter, did you notice only 19% of those surveyed responded?
    One can”t draw much of a conclusion from that. Marianna

    1. Half of that voted for the resolution in the first online vote… And it was sent to workshop… Not enough support… Then the 250 person convention barely debated it and passed it through.

      The survey has a larger representation of members.

    2. Hey Marianna,
      You are not the only one to point out to weaknesses in the survey. It was not a “random” survey, so only reflects the thoughts of those who responded. But the broader question remains: if there had been a random sample of GPC members on this question, what do you think the result would have been? Some people think there is a lot of support for the BDS resolution, others think the support has been overstated. I am very cautious on this.

      1. According to Tom Woodley’s piece, before the E.May’s threats, the resolution polled 58% in the online vote. http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6841211-may-s-behaviour-unbecoming-for-a-federal-leader/

        The “random sample” question is irrelevant. The GP followed their own procedures and this was the outcome. Hillary, er, Lizzie didn’t like the results and so mustered the ostensibly non-existent party elites to fix the results. Now it can’t end well for the Greens.

        I’m scandalized that the best MP and one of the most informed is surrendering the most democratic party to the Lobby. Meanwhile, her Jewish counterpart in the US, Jill Stein, unambiguously supports BDS and recognizes that the Palestine issue was behind alot of Sanders youthful support.

  4. @ Anonymous

    — Certainly the leadership has the right provided bylaws permit jt.

    Sure but I wanted to raise the issue in response to marvgand2 that what the membership is asking of leadership is something that is potentially life changing for them and potentially reshaping for the party.

    — None of the leadership has referred to it as morally offensive so I can’t be sure why you made that up.

    The context. This came right after the parliament, “condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.” The debate was ferocious and this language was watered down from what the conservatives wanted and in exchange they got a 229-51 vote. May herself abstained not voted against.

    — As the reasons given it shows that the major issue is the practical impact on the party in the political arena for taking a stand on the issue.

    Which is of course true. But why would their be so much practical impact? You are rephrasing the assertion not refuting it.

    — The GoI which has been found to have been committing flagrant violations of the 4th GC.

    Not by the government of Canada. The government of Canada doesn’t recognize unilateral annexation that’s a far cry from seeing Israel as an institutionally criminal state in disagreeing with Canada on this matter. I think your government’s position is incoherent and conflicted but it certainly is not as strong as you assert.

    — It is morally offensive to ignore these crimes and turn our backs on the Palestinian citizens.

    I get that you agree with the call for BDS. Others disagree with you strongly and passionately. For example I didn’t feel that opposing the move for war with Iran and supporting Obama’s diplomacy was turning my back on the democratic movements being made by the Persian people. Lots of people don’t believe that destruction of states is a good way to achieve civil rights reforms.

    But whether you are right or wrong wasn’t the original point. Demanding that people stand publicly for a position they find repulsive and that could easily brand them for life because some committee voted for it is a bit much. That was my point. Leaders of the Green Party of Canada are doing nothing wrong in making sure that before the Green Party goes into a battle like this that the membership really wants this war.

    1. cd-host
      The context. `…

      `Yes. As I said you made it up. Neither the green party nor Elizabeth May supported the motion. Indeed the motion itself did not use your fabricated terminology. `Your fabrication stands in stark contrast to what the green party has actually said. Incredibly dishonest for you to have done that.

      `But why would their be so much practical impact?

      You tell me. I`m sure you’re capable of dreaming something up.

      “Not by the government of Canada. ”

      Canada is a member of the UN and in accordance with membership and acceptance of the UN Charter, specifcally Chapter V, it implicitly accepts the rulings of the security council. In this instance as stated in S/RES/476. I would also highlight resoluton 465 although these two resolutions are hardly the extent of security council decisions on the I/P issue.

      Israel has also agreed to the UN Charter upon it’s request, and acceptance, for admission to that body.It is in violation of it’s commitments madeat that time.

      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826

      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/5aa254a1c8f8b1cb852560e50075d7d5?OpenDocument

      “But whether you are right or wrong wasn’t the original point. Demanding that people stand publicly for a position they find repulsive and that could easily brand them for life because some committee voted for it is a bit much”

      It is no more,or less, than asking people to turn a blind eye to the legal and human right violations of Israel.

      1. Not by the government of Canada. ”

        Canada is a member of the UN and in accordance with membership and acceptance of the UN Charter, specifcally Chapter V, it implicitly accepts the rulings of the security council.

        And it explicitly disagrees with at the very least your interpretation of those resolutions current applicability. Explicitly declarations of policy are more important than implicit ones.

        — Israel has also agreed to the UN Charter upon it’s request, and acceptance, for admission to that body.It is in violation of it’s commitments madeat that time.

        The UN doesn’t believe so. The charter is quite explicit that if a state were to cease being “peace loving” and engage in acts of aggression … it would be expelled from membership. Ergo Israel is not doing what you claim it is doing. You can’t have it both ways with regard to the UN judgements being final and them being infallible.

        More fundamentally though the UN is quite explicit in rejecting racial land claims and instead viewing all inhabitants of a territory as being worthy of having their rights protected. Racial land claims are at the heart of the BDS movement so I’m not sure how much you can claim to support the UN. That’s not a side issue the concept of nation states, self determination and the rights of all inhabitants are the key concepts on which the charter rests and ideas that BDS violently disagrees with.

        If you were to be an advocate for the UN Charter, the UN Charter explicitly determines that the proper recourse for an argument with a foreign government is to convince your government to bring a case before the United Nations Security Council and have them rule on the dispute. You don’t do that. Rather you utilize a strategy of rogue actions by NGOs and individuals as a method of attempting to directly change policy which when the UN has ruled on it has generally condemned in the harshest terms.

        — It is no more,or less, than asking people to turn a blind eye to the legal and human right violations of Israel.

        No in fact it is quite a bit more. People and political parties turn a blind eye to legal and human rights violations all over the planet for any number of reasons all the time. Moreover that’s not an accurate description of Canada’s policy. Canada has repeatedly indicated displeasure with some of Israel’s actions. They aren’t turning a blind eye to those actions. But… what Canada is unwilling to do and what you are urging Canada to do is adopt a policy not just of regime change but of actually destruction of the nation underlying Israel and its replacement with another nation. A policy of enmity far greater than Canada (or for that matter virtually any other state) has towards any other nation on earth.

  5. Cd-host

    Canada has never explicitly repudiated UN security votes nor it’s prior voting recotd on the I/P issue. Indeed Canada does side with Israel on many issues and votes. With the exception of the sycophant harper years it haskept a balanced hand overall. Indeed ut recently voted no on a number of resolutions as it felt they were unbalanced in nature. As usual though your characterization us false.

    I’m not so sure that I would simplify the issue to merely racist land claims. That said I do have to note that is a risible comment coming from someone who advocates unequal rights for citizens in support of a nation that seeksbto steip it’s minority of their citizenship by transferring them, regardless of their wishes, to newly formed bantustan err neutered state of Paleztine. Or perhaps I misunderstand you and you are confessing? On the bright side it’s been a short time since the last GoI cabinet minister declared Palestinian wombs to be an existential threat. Things are looking up I guess.

    I am an advocate of the UN though I can certainly make a laundry list of issues that I have with them. It is not Canada which is in violation of dozens of UNSC resolutions. As for your Israel must be peace loving because blah blah… pull the other leg. Iraq certainly wasn’t considered peace loving when it invaded Kuwait. That Israel hasn’t been expelled isn’t evidence let alone proof of a peaceful quality.

    There are indeed appropriate channels for despute resolutions. And Israel objects to every Palestinian attempt to make use of them. Even when it obtains decisions, Israel ignores them.

    1. @anonymous

      — Canada has never explicitly repudiated UN security votes

      Let’s take Nov 24th last year since you’ve tried to pretend this issue was just Harper and not also Martin and Trudeau:

      a) “promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, to support the achievement without delay of an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and of the two-state solution on the basis of the pre-1967 border.”

      voted against by Canada.

      “grave concern about the extremely detrimental impact of Israeli settlement policies, decisions and activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, including on the contiguity, integrity and viability of the territory.”

      voted against by Canada.

      “that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to immediately cease all such illegal and unilateral measures.”

      voted against by Canada.

      Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights (referred to as “the Syrian Golan”) is a “stumbling block in the way of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region.”

      voted against by Canada. And explicitly condemned by Canada during the debate.

      ___

      As for the rest of your comments they aren’t addressing things I wrote.

  6. @cd-host

    Those are UNGA resolutions. I said, as you quoted, UNSC. you know the difference and always resort to fabrications. As to the votes themselves, as I said, that it’s my opinion that overall Canada has practiced a balanced hand on this ongoing issue. It felt those motions were two one sided.

    As for the rest of your post I think I did indeed deal with your attempts at diversion and deflection.

    1. @Anon

      I know those are UNGA resolutions. But they are repudiating ideas in UNSC resolutions. For example UNSC 251, 252, 298 are all prohibits acts that change the status of Jerusalem. Canada just formally voted against supporting that. UNSC 446 says that settlements are a violation of the 4th Geneva convention, Canada just voted against that. Etc… That’s repudiation in the UN of those policies. Those resolutions merely restated what had been the global consensus 40 years ago.

      Governments that had one policy that wasn’t successfully implemented are not required to hold that policy eternally but rather can state that the situation has changed enough that policy should change. So I don’t think there is anything wrong with Canada saying the situation in the West Bank in 1967-1972 was different enough from the situation in 2015, that the previous UNSC resolutions are failed policy. Those resolutions are “one sided” because they are divorced from reality.

      The BDS concept that policy is to be eternal and that the UN and it is the hight if wickedness to even question them (except when its not like recognizing Israel as a state) is not supported by Canada. Your casual claims that Israel is in violation of dozens of security council resolutions is simply not supported by the facts. The body that determines violations of Security Council resolutions, the Security Council doesn’t think Israel is in violation of their resolutions. Canada’s attitude is not atypical.

      The USA in the 1950s had a policy that Cuba must return all the lands “stolen” in the revolution to the Batista supporting families they came from. In 2016 the USA doesn’t have the same policy. The revolution in Cuba is not a temporary thing and the Cuban families in question are now 3rd generation Americans.

  7. Cd-host

    By the way I meant to refer to your stayement that I said it was only harper. While I referred to him as a sycophant I nevervsaid what you suggested. His a dark stain on our history. A man who accepted a medal from a regime in the Ukraine. A regime even jpost characterizrs as neonazi.

    Finally I agree, as does the international community, that land swaps are the best way to create two states (despite zionists attempts to cantonize the territory). What land and where is up to the Palestinians as it is their land which is being stolen. The main problem with the Israeli version of this is stripping non Jewish Israelis of their citizenship as that is a further violation of their human rights. They have every right to remain citizens in the nation they were born on the land which was in that state. Absent a referendum in which they agree to be transferred it’s a non starter. The identical cconsideration does not apy to settlers who are illegally creating facts on the ground on land outside of Israel.

    1. @Anon

      I think I disagree with just about everything you wrote.

      First off I totally reject the concept that Jews moving into a place are “stealing”. I find the characterization quite offensive. My neighborhood is becoming Indian over the last generation. The Indians aren’t stealing the land they are moving in. If there is a country called Palestine then all that would be happening is Israeli Jews are emigrating from Israel, immigrating to Palestine and living there. That’s not stealing land anymore than the people moving from India are stealing. That is precisely the sort of language that people object to when it comes to BDS. Now I don’t happen to think Palestine exists anymore than Narnia exists but if I did your whole claim would be false.

      The settlers are mostly at this point children who are living in the land of their birth. No the identical consideration do apply to them most certainly, and that’s 2/3rds of the “settlers”. This is the core BDS is Antisemetic it that it tries to treat people differently based on what amounts to a racial criteria. We do not punish peoples because of acts of their ancestors. We don’t punish the Spanish because we aren’t happy about how Visigoths migrated into Hispania during the Hunnic invasion or later the reconquista and similarly we shouldn’t punish Jewish kids even if one disagrees with the Israeli settlement movement.

      Moreover, states have the right to relinquish territory. Heck the USA and Canada trade territory along the border fairly regularly and we don’t hold referendums in the effected towns to do it. If someone in a town given to Canada wants to remain in the USA they move and similarly in the reverse direction.

      I’m happy the Israeli Arabs want to remain in Israel. But to justify that they need to become fully Israeli. That means acting with loyalty and to stop conspiring with foreign powers (if one believes that Palestine exists) against their country. That means serving in the Army as all Israelis do. And while not quite yet, given how Israel is ceasing to be secular, it might mean in the future adopting the state religion. It certainly is going to mean changing Islam in ways that make it compatible with Israel, the same way that American Jews created a Protestant like faith with a Jewish veneer as American Judaism. And in generations hence it means interbreeding so that in 5 generations from now their aren’t Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis but simply Israelis the same way the sephardic, mizrahi and ashkenazi in Israel are breaking down those barriers now.

      A vision which frankly is a heck of a lot more humane than the unending murderous civil wars and total ethnic extermination which the rejectionism of BDS is likely to produce.

  8. @cd-host

    I am neither surprised nor bothered that you disagree with me.

    Your analogy to what is happening in your neighbourhood is totally off the wall. Yeb Indians are presumably in the territory legally (Israelis are not), not living under Indian law (Israeli settlers live under israeli law) and do not have the intent for your neighbourhood becoming a part of India or any other state for that matter. If you meant native American Indians the same argument applies that it wont be annexed to their limitrd sovereignty). I wasn’t clear as tonwhat you meant by Indian but it is irrelevant. Indeed, unlike the settlements, they didn’t force you to move in order for them to move in. And you are not precluded from living there or even walking too close.
    Apart from the fact that houses arw involved in both scenarios you could not have picked more dissimilar situations. And yes not all settlements are built on land that had houses but some were. And they were built on non Israeli land in all cases.

    Ah so less rights for minorities and possibly a forced religious conversion in the future.

    You continue to amaze!

    It is impossible to not note that you portray the entire group of Israeli non-jews as disloyal. No state puts up with treason for sure but the racism involved in using such a broad brush instead of a case by case basis of individuals is extreme. There are historical similariities but they are acknowledged as being driven by racism and wrong in this modern era.

    No it isn’t more humane than the endless brutal oppression being inflicted by Israel. It is just that your favoured group isn’t the one suffering. A cold callous and racist sentiment.

    I apprexlciate the extent that you have opened up about your beliefs and vision. It is very revealing.

  9. @Anon

    Here again you are trying to have it both ways. If Palestine is a separate country then:

    — Yeb Indians are presumably in the territory legally (Israelis are not),

    Of course they are. The government of Palestine (i.e. the occupation government) says they are legal.

    — not living under Indian law (Israeli settlers live under israeli law)

    No they don’t. They live under the laws of a military dictatorship, Israelis live in a democracy.

    etc…

    — Indeed, unlike the settlements, they didn’t force you to move in order for them to move in. And you are not precluded from living there or even walking too close.

    That’s the fault of the Palestinians resisting Jews moving in. During the 1970s there were no forced lines but during the 1970s Palestinians in the West Bank treated Jews as neighbors and didn’t toss rocks at them, conduct bombings if they got the chance… The West Bank (and mainly Gazan) Palestinians were the ones who decided to turn the happy relationship of the 1970s violent again. Not shockingly that didn’t work out well for them.

    — Apart from the fact that houses arw involved in both scenarios you could not have picked more dissimilar situations.

    You have just asserted they are dissimilar because of your “illegality” which is a circular argument. BDS racism is justified because of illegality. The declaration that a minority is illegal (a thing most liberals don’t support in most countries) should be upheld because of racism…

    — And yes not all settlements are built on land that had houses but some were. And they were built on non Israeli land in all cases.

    So what? My neighbors built own their homes on non-Indian land. If Palestine is a separate country there is no reason it shouldn’t have emigration and immigration from foreigners.

    — Ah so less rights for minorities and possibly a forced religious conversion in the future.

    As contrasted with extermination and expulsion, referring to them as thieves…. Sorry but you are far far more hostile to Jews than most KKKers are to Blacks. You don’t get to play the minorities card. If there is Palestinian land should be free of all Jews then the Jewish land can be free of all Palestinians. If one is going to be tolerant the other should be. Etc..

    — It is impossible to not note that you portray the entire group of Israeli non-jews as disloyal. No state puts up with treason for sure but the racism involved in using such a broad brush instead of a case by case basis of individuals is extreme.

    There is no racism. Mizrahi Jews are the same race as Palestinians. Identifying with an enemy makes you disloyal. An American who declares himself a member of Al Qaeda is disloyal by the declaration. There is nothing wrong with the Palestinians racially however political they have been 5th column. That’s an aggregate judgement it has nothing to do with individuals. Individually their are plenty of Palestinians who make fine Israelis but their aggregate culture is dreadful.

    1. @cd-host

      The Israeli gov says they are legal in violatuon of international law and the Geneva conventions.

      You need to explain your second response a bit more as perhaps I am reading you wrong. But…

      Israeli settlements in Palestine live according to Israeli law. Palestinians live in Palestine live according to military dictatorship. This also is partially a violatuon of international law as the then current law of the land, subject to military necessity and emergency, is to be applied to all.

      No one has called for extermination or expulsion. That’s either a flat out lie or histrionics. The PA has stated no Israelis will remain. Jews who wish to settle there will be welcome. Israelis who accept Palestinian citizenship and abide by their laws will be welcome. Israelis and israeli troops will not. After 70 years of oppression that is a very generous offer. One which Israel won’t accept asnit wants to steal the land.

      Ok. No racism. Just rancid vile ethnic bigotry. And your collective aggregate judgement on their aggregate culture is rancid bigotry in action. Then again racism doesn’t even exist as the reality is there is only one race. Wow you solved the worlds problems with a simple redefinition. (Ps want to discuss the racism shown to Mizrahi Jews? We will do that some other day butnyou exposed another weak point)

      Don’t bother with your clarification. We’re done. You have shown your stripes clearly.

  10. @Anon

    — Israeli settlements in Palestine live according to Israeli law. Palestinians live in Palestine live according to military dictatorship. This also is partially a violatuon of international law as the then current law of the land, subject to military necessity and emergency, is to be applied to all.

    What would be the “current law of the land” for the country of Palestine? Jordanian law, Egyptian law, British law, Turkish law…? That’s part of the problem you have with your country not existing. There is no current law that could be applied because the country of Palestine never existed. This is another area where the UN has put Israel in an impossible position. When they try and apply Israeli law to all and grant citizenship to all (as they did in Jerusalem) the UN condemns this as annexation. When they act like a military dictatorship they get condemned for apartheid. When they act like a military that is mostly passing through with no desire to govern you end with Gaza. Given that Israel is well governed the UN should be encouraging annexation which is the usual the policy when faced with a functioning state and a failed state.

    As far as the facts you are simple wrong. This has become increasingly a point of contention for the Israeli left as many of the “constitutional protections” don’t exist east of the green line and police procedures are quite different. 10% of the population is being acclimated to a much less democratic feeling government than what exists in Israel proper. Let me link to a video:

    You’ll see an example where Israeli leftists try and assert that they have a “right” to travel and the border patrol officer very politely tells them they don’t have rights. That kind of behavior that the IDF is bragging about (the translation doesn’t make this clear but the Israelis in the car are leftists, who are using condescending language towards the border patrol who are working class). So there you see evidence that disproves your theory of Israeli law.

    — No one has called for extermination or expulsion.

    Of course they have. The charter of the PLO. The charter of Hamas. You yourself in using words like “war criminals” and “thieves” to apply to populations, and describing the land as “stolen” because it is inhabited by a minority you don’t like. You do not get to use the language of genocide and then pretend that you are advocating for humane solutions. People who believe in minority rights don’t consider minorities to be intrinsically stealing when they move somewhere.

    — The PA has stated no Israelis will remain. Jews who wish to settle there will be welcome.

    And they also call the Jews who did wish to settle there “settlers” as opposed to say “immigrants” and declare their presence to be a violation of international law pushing for condemnation. They argue that any sort of Jewish construction is a crime…. Same as you are doing. If the PA believed in non racist government there wouldn’t be a Palestinian / Israeli conflict. The PA would just be a governing body within the Israeli state.

    — One which Israel won’t accept asnit wants to steal the land.

    There you go. That’s the language of the genocide. When Jews move somewhere it is stealing.

    — Ok. No racism. Just rancid vile ethnic bigotry.

    Get off it. There is no ethnic bigotry either. Cut the non sense. Who do you think you are that made you the moral authority on anything? There is nothing bigoted ethnically in declaring that French nationals are loyal to France while German nationals are loyal to Germany. It is not ethnic at all. There is no ethnic dimension to it. The reason BDS ends up getting treated like a criminal organization is this sort of language towards people who don’t agree with their nonsensical policy positions. Genocidal language towards Israelis and constant assertions of racism that make no sense at all towards others.

Comments are closed.