Who are you asking? If you’re asking me, I’d say the 1947 partition plan. Or at least the West Bank borders from 1967 with the Gaza Strip + extended border with Egypt from the 1947 plan.
I mean, the ideal would be for a peaceful one state solution where neither side is privileged. Maybe even, at least temporarily, a Northern Ireland–style situation where any government is required to have representation of both groups. Because religious ethnostates fucking suck. But Israel has made it painfully clear that they have zero interest in that; they really quite like their apartheid.
Penny Wong has already called for such a two state solution. What was the point of this motion?
I was asking what were Greens proposing? I know many of their constituents chant “from the river to the sea”.
I recall that when Labor first rejected the call for a ceasefire and Greens walked out of Parliament. The document Greens were expecting Labor to sign contained no acknowledgement that the October 7 massacre even happened (let alone condemning it).
A few weeks later the document was amended and Labor signed on.
Because I imagine a state needs to be defined physically before it can be recognised. It seems you don’t care enough to track down the statement parliament was asked to sign.
Labor are focused on the hard yards of a 2SS, Greens are trolling with theatre. In fact Greens may not even support a 2SS because it goes against the call of “from the river to the sea”.
It seems you don’t care enough to track down the statement parliament was asked to sign.
I saw the statement before I ever saw the result of the vote. It’s excruciatingly simple.
This House recognise the State of Palestine.
It couldn’t be more simple.
Labor doesn’t support it because they support Israel and the genocide Israel is perpetuating. Or to be more accurate, they’re accepting of genocide as long as it doesn’t upset America. There’s nothing more to it.
The idea that Labor is putting in any sort of “hard yards” is utterly laughable, considering they’re selling weapons to and buying them from the perpetrators of genocide.
What are the borders of the proposed Palestinian state?
“From the River to the Sea”?
Who are you asking? If you’re asking me, I’d say the 1947 partition plan. Or at least the West Bank borders from 1967 with the Gaza Strip + extended border with Egypt from the 1947 plan.
I mean, the ideal would be for a peaceful one state solution where neither side is privileged. Maybe even, at least temporarily, a Northern Ireland–style situation where any government is required to have representation of both groups. Because religious ethnostates fucking suck. But Israel has made it painfully clear that they have zero interest in that; they really quite like their apartheid.
Penny Wong has already called for such a two state solution. What was the point of this motion?
I was asking what were Greens proposing? I know many of their constituents chant “from the river to the sea”.
I recall that when Labor first rejected the call for a ceasefire and Greens walked out of Parliament. The document Greens were expecting Labor to sign contained no acknowledgement that the October 7 massacre even happened (let alone condemning it).
A few weeks later the document was amended and Labor signed on.
The movement was only to recognise Palestinian statehood, not to define its borders.
Well then why hasn’t she actually recognised Palestine, like 146 out of 193 other countries already have?
You still haven’t told me what the borders of that Palestine are.
You haven’t told me why you care. Do you not think Palestine should be recognised as an independent country?
Because I imagine a state needs to be defined physically before it can be recognised. It seems you don’t care enough to track down the statement parliament was asked to sign.
Labor are focused on the hard yards of a 2SS, Greens are trolling with theatre. In fact Greens may not even support a 2SS because it goes against the call of “from the river to the sea”.
I saw the statement before I ever saw the result of the vote. It’s excruciatingly simple.
It couldn’t be more simple.
Labor doesn’t support it because they support Israel and the genocide Israel is perpetuating. Or to be more accurate, they’re accepting of genocide as long as it doesn’t upset America. There’s nothing more to it.
The idea that Labor is putting in any sort of “hard yards” is utterly laughable, considering they’re selling weapons to and buying them from the perpetrators of genocide.
That is simpleton level of simplicity.
Penny Wong went to the region pushing the 2SS. That is about 15 million yards.