She’s have to think about whether that would get her elected.
WA already has two popular Greens senators.
She’s have to think about whether that would get her elected.
WA already has two popular Greens senators.
Why not three?
Fucking hell, she’s standing up for thousands of civilians being murdered in their fucking homes. EVERYTIME a vote like this fails to pass, it’s a tick of support for the Israeli state and their regime of genocide. This isn’t politics, this is literally people being murdered in their homes, in refugee camps, even as they just walk down the street as they’re trying to escape. The ONLY way this stops is through international pressure. Recognizing the Palestinian state is literally the only way this works. Labor is 100% on the wrong side of history at the moment purely because they’re playing politics instead of actually acting like human beings.
You wonder why people are fed up with politics? It’s due to shit like that. They’d rather mindless drones that toe that “party line” than actually doing the right thing
Well, I suppose I’m not sure the popularity of the Greens necessarily supports 3 senators in WA?
I don’t think its ever happened before. Not saying it’s impossible but she’d have to consider that, if that’s where she feels her immediate future lies.
If Labor continue down their current path of beige then definitely. I know I’m not voting for them again next time.
Or the people may vote for the candidate due to the stance she has taken.
If there’s one thing the last election taught us, it’s that voters are definitely sticking with the major parties when they abandon their core values. Nobody is turning towards alternative candidates who put forward clear policy and value alternatives. Labor should definitely carry on with their Steven Bradbury approach to keeping government.
Why is Payman so desperate to vote for literally anything that she’s willing to be the patsy in a cartoonish Greens stunt? This is about as sophisticated as painting a road tunnel on a rock wall and Payman has driven into it at full speed.
Despite the fact that it’s not the Senate’s job to recognise states, despite the fact that the passage or otherwise of the motion will have exactly zero impact on the lives of the Palestinian people, despite the fact that this is nothing but a messaging exercise for the Greens, Labor is willing to vote for a motion like this if it acknowledges that recognition of a Palestinian state has to be part of a two-state solution, which it sees as the only way to a lasting peace.
What part of that qualification to the Greens have an issue with? What part of that does Payman have an issue with?
Do they want a one-state solution (I note that Lidia Thorpe was bellowing “from the river to the sea” in the chamber, and in context that seems to imply that she thinks the pre-1947 borders should apply)?
Do they not want a lasting peace?
Where’s the problem with Labor’s amendment?
I reckon someone like Pocock should move a motion incorporating the original Greens text and the Labor amendment and see where the Greens will vote. Might even get up.
Funny that Labour people always think anything the greens do is a stunt. Anyway…
I like the parallel “its a motion that doesn’t matter” and “hey labour will be glad to do it if they get their amendment to it”. Why bother then? If it’s meaningless it’s meaningless.
As for actual recognition, Australia already recognises Israel as a state. Recognising Palestine as a state would not invalidate that. “Recognising” Palestine as state that has to be part of a two state solution is not recognising Palestine as a state.
Australia recognises both the DPRK and the ROK as states despite each claiming dominion over the entire Korean peninsular.
I dare say one of the issues they have with that as a condition is that it denies the current fact that Palestine already exists. It’s just occupied by Israel in a “belligerent occupation” (as their supreme court labeled it).
People who don’t understand what follows, “Palestine will be free” to mean “all Palestinians will have freedom” and instead assume it means “there will be an exclusively Palestinian ethno state across the whole territory to the exclusion of Jewish Israelis” show that their own vision of peace is founded on ethno-nationalism.
I feel like while this may have been the meaning of the message initially, it very much isn’t anymore. It’s been 100% coopted by those that want to see the dissolution of the Israeli State and when shouted, it’s as much about being Pro-Palestine as being inflammatory towards Israelis
She could just feel very strongly about the issue of ethnic cleansing?
Hard disagree. It’s been 100% labelled that way by the authorities across the West, repeated ad infinitum as a way of demonising the movement.
I don’t deny that Nazis occasionally try and latch themselves onto our solidarity movement, and perhaps more significant is pan-Islamist movements like supporters of Iran who do try and coopt things into a religious/ethno-war dimension. This happened at the Opera House rally for example, when Hezbollah activists then got onto “death to Jews”. But they aren’t welcomed by the Palestinian organisers of said events, who actively denounced them after that rally.
Going by wiki, it was first properly used by PLO in the 1960’s and very much insinuated a single state. Point still stands though, it’s very much been coopted and used as well, by those that want a single state solution. Granted I don’t know much about modern history in that area of the world.
Even in saying that, the wording to the phrase is ridiculously ambiguous and very much doesn’t do any favours for those saying it.
Why not accept the amendment then?
They could have had the house recognise Palestine as a state, if that was their goal.
I mentioned two reasons in that very post.
Edit: Just to be clear that first point is meant as - recognising it as conditional - rather than recognising it as it is.
Imagine a motion asserting that black lives matter, and someone wanted to amend it to say all lives matter. Why wouldn’t you accept that amendment?
Why does Palestinian statehood and recognition depend on the context of Israel’s existence, when our recognition of Israel doesn’t depend on Palestine’s existence?
Is that not “do as I say or else”? The Caucus is trying to control Payman and coerce her into toeing the party line with punishment for not following that line. It’s not a long philosophical bow to draw a comparison. And you are way too intelligent to think I would be disregarding the serious issue of DV by doing so.
The Nuremberg Trials took away, “I was just following orders” as a defence.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Ask Labor for Palestine why they opposed the amendment.
Nonsense.
You don’t think of it like a relationship. The party isn’t a single entity that is trying to coerce her. It’s a collective that she’s a part of.
Think of it like a club. A club she’s joined and agreed to the rules. Rules that everyone accepts restrict them sometimes, but it’s for a good reason. You don’t have to agree but she did. Rules that everyone in the club has agreed to and everyone else is abiding by.
Except for one person.
So that person doesn’t get to be part of the club, unless they can show they will respect it and everyone who is a part of it, from now on. The same respect she’s been shown. Her opinion will have bound a dissenting opinion in the caucus before, I’m sure. Possibly on a matter that they felt very strongly about. The others respected their colleagues enough to accept the caucus.
I think it’s the “it’s for a good reason” part that are making this look bad for Labor. People can’t see why the club having those rules is for a good reason, and they might decide they don’t want this club in charge of the community hall bookings anymore.
You can say that a token motion through the Australian senate, or even the whole parliament, might not make a meaningful difference. But we live in an interconnected world. We can see the dead in Gaza, the mocking of IDF soldiers, the actions being taken across the world - all on social media (and same for other conflicts). The inverse is true; when there’s an international state actor or campaign who stands up for Palestine, they can see it immediately, and it gives them hope to go on.