iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Dismissing this as "hurt feelings" is nonsense, imo, but fair enough, I don't think there's any need to further clarify either of our positions and I think we can chalk this up as a point of significant disagreement.

220

None of those things strike me as terribly unreasonable requests.

100

The major complaint I can see is that Jewish people wanted a more explicit commitment to ensuring this wouldn't be an excuse for internal harassment or for bad actors trying to expel people, or for accidentally proscribing their synagogues, and they were promised that but then didn't get it.

120

I mean ok but then drive past it and focus on the latter. Especially, again, since "Donald Trump is a cunt who can fuck right off" is a way easier sell.

100

That would be my view, anyway. Which I do not think is equivalent to letting Zionists have a veto on party policy.

And, if you want to say "ok well fair enough" or "bye then" that's up to you, but it feels as if, again, if the point is to force the issue in the press and put the issue front and centre, these are the kinds of people you want on your side and not throwing their hands up and leaving.

230

Why I Am No Longer A Green

It's not something I've been fully abreast of. I thought this piece was an interesting insight into what the other side of this thinks. wayne.conniptions.org/2026/10/05/w...

wayne.conniptions.org

I joined the Green Party of England and Wales in 2014.

Ok but here I *actually do disagree* because the Zionism or otherwise of British Jews isn't why we're backing Israel to the hilt. We're doing that because it's what the Americans want.

Ok well that's your right to not care about but you're talking the party into a fight with a) the press b) a significant chunk of its Jewish membership *at the same time* and that is, at best, ill-advised.

230

Like you can "very well, alone" this fight if you desire but I would personally try to at the very least get Jewish Greens alongside rather than resigning in protest.

flyingrodent @flyingrodent.bsky.social · 4h

Ok sure, but if you're going to take the fight to the press on those terms I would *personally* want to make absolutely fucking sure I wasn't doing it in a way that would have Jewish green party members leaving the party over it.

250

Reposted by Phil McDuff

MPs and the press combined to hound the fuck out of *the actual police* for months for being secret Islamist agents, folks. What do you think has been happening here, exactly?

17013

No I hadn't, I'll put it on at lunchtime.

010

Having that kind of conversation is absolutely valid within a political party, even if you start from a default assumption of press hostility.

Fair enough. I was putting other things onto you. My position isn't that we need to act as if there is a position we can take which gets the press on our side, but there's absolutely a need to be strategic about what fights we pick and how and why we go about that.

140

I'm sorry but that has been the tenor of the responses here. If that's not how you meant it I'll withdraw that.

What problem with the prior policy did this motion seek to solve? Was there a way to go about solving that problem which could have put us in a better position, strategically and tactically, to weather the brunt of the inevitable attacks by the fascist press?

and I think we can take it as read that basic questions like "is Israel committing genocide" are already broadly agreed upon. If you want to have a fight with someone else about those things by all means go ahead and find such a person to have that fight with.

000

If you want to have another conversation about something else I am happy for you to do that but I will kindly remind you that this conversation is about a specific motion that the Green Party of England and Wales passed,

*I* mentioned them because *I* am talking about the anti-zionist Jews who have spoken up in opposition to the way this was done. "Everyone who opposes this is just a Zionist and can be discarded" is a factually incorrect statement.

100

"if you don't agree with absolutely everything about this, not just the text itself but also the strategic purpose of it, you're basically an agent of imperialism and pro Zionist genocide and also you love the British press" is for sure a way you can approach this.

Ask *me* what *I* think about the British press. Am I a person well known for my tempered view as to their morals and character? Is this an argument you think *I* am making in the belief that they are bastions of reason?

250

You know, I don't think "anti Zionist Jews who are against Israel but who have issues with how this motion was drafted are morally the equivalent of slave owners" is in any way defensible but have at it.

100

Again, if you want to characterise people against this motion as DEFINITIONALLY "pro Zionist" then go ahead but I won't be indulging that.

030

Being anti-zionist while feeling railroaded by the way a motion that they broadly agree with 90% of has been passed is not the same thing as being a transphobe who also supports rent controls.

210

Plenty of people in the greens opposed to this motion? Or plenty of people I don't give a fuck about?

100

Who's saying "Israel isn't that bad?"

I don't give a fuck why people like Berger or Hodges are angry about it because I know that the reason is bad faith nonsense. I do actually care if anti Zionist Jews who oppose the genocide and who have shown up at anti Israel actions feel railroaded by this.

100

Also characterising what I'm saying as #notallzionists is dogshit and if you really want to do that then go ahead but, like, it's not a tenor of argument I am going to indulge on this? Ok?

Corner @dangerouscorner.bsky.social · 4h

I think it's a really bad argument to say "known bad faith whoppers like Luciana Berger and Dan Hodges are doing what they would do when the sun came up, therefore any objections from anti-zionist Jews are doing the same thing."

240

Reposted by Phil McDuff

This doesn't do that. It puts 'greens hate Jews' on the front page, and we need to start from the back foot. We also have to start from the back foot in those bits of the media which are willing to give us a balanced hearing. It's an avoidable error.

491

Reposted by Phil McDuff

Corner @dangerouscorner.bsky.social · 4h

We won recent support by the 'a vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy' method: with headline policies which didn't need a two paragraph explainer, so when the Daily Mail put 'Greens will abolish landlords' on their front page, we could say yes, and get support whether they printed our explainer or not

131

Reposted by Phil McDuff

flyingrodent @flyingrodent.bsky.social · 4h

This undersells it, if anything. It is a titanic battle against evil itself that will reverberate in eternity around the universe, and progressives who work for *the fucking Daily Mail* must 100% agree to vote Labour, or be hounded through the streets as scum Nazi hate monsters.

(((Dan Hodges))) *
X
@DPJHodges 13h X
Holborn is no longer a by-election. It's now a referendum on whether Jews are safe, secure and accepted in Britain. Anyone who regards themselves as progressive has to accept this reality.
咒
The Jewish Chronicle 3 @Jew.... 22h
In Holborn, vote for anyone but Zack Polanski's Greens

1311826

What problem with the green party platform was it trying to solve?

120

It's not. And yet there are ways of going about it that are better and worse. Can you explain what it was about the party's previous position that made it more difficult to conduct activism on behalf of the Palestinian people or to oppose the genocide of the Israeli state?

240