Some of the smug both-sidesism on this platform honestly makes me miss the other place.

Zionism, as experienced by Palestinians, not to mention all the people around the world surveilled and murdered by tech provided by the Israeli State, is much closer to Taliban ideology than you seem to realise. And unlike jihad, it is not an old idea violently coopted.

P.s. Holding people to account for their active participation in harmful institutions is what an abolitionist and BDS-compliant position demands. Maybe not everyone holds these positions, but if not then I don't really see how you can describe yourself as an anti-racist.

And finally, to be very clear, I think electoral politics is mainly a disappointment. I don't care whether this is a Green own-goal or not. What I do care about is trying to have a consistent pro-Palestine position, and the state of what passes for "the discourse" about Palestine and antisemitism.

And if the motion means that ppl who id as anti-racist are held accountable, then good, but I don't even think the motion does that. All this pearl clutching about whether Jews in the Green Party will be able to go to shul or not is a total mis-direction.

Attending synagogues where at best the 1948 Nakba is taken as a given (and it's normally a lot worse) OR standing by your principles and leaving. Imagine the furore there would be if Mothin Ali had a Taliban-supporting Imam. And if he did, then I'd expect him to answer questions about it.

Not that this amendment was responding to anything in the actual motion, but this is what is being missed by nearly everyone. Most UK synagogues have real, material and financial relationships to the Israeli State. If you are pro-Palestine, then you need to decide what's more important...

As far as I understand it the answer to this is no. Green Party motions come in a series of categories, one of which is disciplinary. The Anti-Zionism motion was not a disciplinary motion and therefore cannot be used in this way. Again, this is only as far as I understand it.

Um you picked the German example. And there are in fact German Jews. In Germany. Today.

Reply-guy thinks the Nazis were right actually

I must have forgotten my own family history. But that's not my question. You clearly want to lock Jews in a Holocaust-coloured picture frame. We don't get to have other histories, other choices, other lives. Thanks so much.

So you are saying that Jews are not also Germans, Mexicans, Americans, Dutch? Got it.

If we want to talk about Jewish self-determination, then we need to talk about the more than 50% of the global Jewish population that self determines to not live in the Israeli ethno-state.

In 1948 there were 100s of 1000s of Jewish refugees who rejected the chance to settle in Historic Palestine. So Zionism is many things, but it is *not* straightforwardly Jewish self-determination.

To suggest that Zionism equates with Jewish self-determination is actually what might be considered antisemitic. It flattens diverse Jewish lived and historical experiences and suggests that Jews everywhere have some kind of dual loyalty.

The Green Party successfully getting liberals more angry than ooh, I don't know, an actual genocide, far right oligarchs taking over the world's democracies, impending climate collapse...

99.9% of the people discoursing on here about the Greens have clearly never been in a synagogue.

At some point, as a person of conscience, you have to decide whether you can tolerate that or not. And if you can tolerate a financial and propagandistic relationship to genocide, then yes, I think that makes you worthy of being held to account.

The thing is, most zionist synagogues (i.e. most synagogues) are in a material relationship with a genocidal state. Sometimes they might b3 midly critical, but they all raise money for it, they normalise it via public events, platforming ex soldiers, etc.

One of those rare discourses where Martin Buber is guaranteed to appear before Hitler.