Zack Polanski gets banned from Israel

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes. He didn't want the motion tabled at all and wanted an amendment which explicitly stated Jewish people would not be targeted for attending synagogues added, that amendement didn't pass.

Polanski didn't vote or campaign either way. He ignored it entirely to go and campaign in Holborn ahead of the by-election this Thursday there. He clearly didn't want to get involved at all, despite being the leader of the party, which is quite something.

He just doesn't want to make any hard decisions or get involved. Baffling.

Polanski is a useful idiot who is being used by a bunch of raging anti-semites to Jew-wash their agenda into some form of respectability.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Except one is an inconsequential Jewish politician in Britain with no power to enforce a Palestinian state or even influence the situation there and the other is a wanted criminal, actually brazenly ensuring there can only be one state, to me that's a world of difference but of course ymmv, happy to clarify for you

Again, if only Polanski had come up with this idea you might have a point, but he didn’t. Nor did his party.

‘From the river to the sea’ isn’t just a catchy slogan. It is the broadly held belief within Palestinianism - shared by Hamas, though, notably, not the PA in the West Bank - that Israel is entirely illegitimate and only one state, a Palestinian one, should exist.

The fact that Polanski and the Greens are not able to implement their Palestinian one-state solution while Netanyahu is having a go at implementing his does not magnify nor diminish the wrongness of either position.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

He just doesn't want to make any hard decisions or get involved. Baffling.

Weak leadership, can't abide by it, get it wrong we're all human but don't abrogate responsibility

Originally Posted by Chris

Again, if only Polanski had come up with this idea you might have a point, but he didn’t. Nor did his party.

‘From the river to the sea’ isn’t just a catchy slogan. It is the broadly held belief within Palestinianism - shared by Hamas, though, notably, not the PA in the West Bank - that Israel is entirely illegitimate and only one state, a Palestinian one, should exist.

The fact that Polanski and the Greens are not able to implement their Palestinian one-state solution while Netanyahu is having a go at implementing his does not magnify nor diminish the wrongness of either position.

We're not going to agree here Chris, whilst technically in a literal definition of words sense, what they've said is the same, the reality for the people that have to live through it, those definitions are entire Worlds apart

[Carth]

People can call one set or the other racist, war mongers, or even religious nut jobs, it won't stop things that have been (and will probably continue) happening for years.

Makes me wonder if that region should have been better used for Nuclear bomb tests back in the 40's

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Weak leadership, can't abide by it, get it wrong we're all human but don't abrogate responsibility

Not sure he'll last long. The shine was coming off anyway. He is too online and gets into trouble for liking dodgy Tweets or randomly spouting out things. He is also very America-brained and imports a lot of American left-wing phrasing or policy into the UK - even if it isn't relevant.

He seems to copy a lot of what Mamdani does, but Mamdani has a political philosophy behind his politics. Polanski seems to be cosplaying as a left-wing populist without having done the thinking. It's like he is an LLM trained on left-wing Twitter posts.

The other issue is that the Greens have a one-member, one-vote policy. They have few safeguards around it and allow people to vote as soon as they become a member. It's ripe for Entryism. When Labour had this, they still had enough structures and people with the political know-how to eventually defeat it.

As I understand it, a lot of the traditional Greens wanted, at the very least, the safeguarding amendment to pass, if not the entire policy to be defeated. But they were outnumbered.

[jfman]

Some applications of Zionism are undoubtedly racist the “we just want somewhere safe” application is extremely narrow, the expansionist biblical Israel being a maximalist interpretation.

Either way what this motion does is allows activists in the Green Party to remove officials who don’t agree with “party policy” culminating in the deselection of candidates who don’t agree with it. Andy Wightman, a former MSP in the Scottish Greens, ostracised for not bowing to the gender cult has posted about this on X.

Where does someone go these days if they don’t have a view on the Middle East, think men are men, and just don’t want nuclear power, want clean oceans and less fossil fuel consumption?