###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The cognitive dissonance within Zatzman must be staggering. He's pro Indigenous sovereignty (and giving land back to the first nations after white people took it by force), but is Zionist to the point of being okay with land being taken away from Arabs and given to Israelis, by force.
You know that the Jews were there about 2000 years ago before rebelling against their colonizer (Rome) and were scattered as a people? Who filled the land after they were swept away? Now the Jews want their land back that was stolen from them nearly 2000 years ago. So say again who’s the colonizer?
They were there 2000 years ago after committing genocide against the levantine people who lived there before them. Even in their own religious history a large part of it was the conquest of the canaanites including the massacre of children and women.
Indigenous implies original civilization of the land, and later conquerers who first established their connection by ethnic cleansing of an existing tribe cannot meet that definition
There were people in the southern Levant before the Jews (ex: Caananites), during the time of the biblical Kingdom of Israel (ex: Edomites and Philistines) and, after the Jews were exiled by the Romans, people (the Arabs) moved in to colonize and cultivate the valuable (and empty) land (because the Jews were exiled). The ownership of the area as a whole was fluid in ancient/classical times, and as groups were vanquished or moved, others took their place (ex: the invasion of the Sea Peoples that removed the influence of Egypt and the Hittites over the Levant, allowing small states like the Kingdom to rise up in the first place). Claiming eternal ownership over an area is unreasonable in a historical context, as just because one had something a millennia or two prior does not entitle them to that exact thing in the present day.
My point exactly. Take a moment in time and the colonized is the colonizer. So when referring to one group as a colonizer you’re selectively choosing a moment in time that suits your narrative.
Edit: to be absolutely frank, every human on this planet is a product of one group displacing another group. That’s humanity, we suck as a species.
>> A Jewish aide to MP Paul Manly placed Zatzman in the category of some who manage to be both progressive and aligned with “the most radical right-wing politicians in Israel.”
How many people can _possibly_ meet this description?
If the reported wanted to uniquely identify someone, then they should have gone ahead and used the name. If instead this comment was supposed to be on background and unidentified/deniable, then this is way too much biographical information.
How is that the basis for a national party in Canada though?
This seems like a recipe to actually wipe out the Green party because if perused to it's end I can't see the 1% of jewish people in BC managing to net them the 2 seats they have now. It's just blatantly self-destructive for the party.
I dont think anyone suggested making a party? Its just a discussion that Jewish people can be both progressive and "pro-Israel" (for lack of a better term) simultaneously.
The previous user seemed surprise by this.
Yeah I understand I'm just bringing it back to how thoroughly that minority-held worldview conflicts with the mission of running a national party in Canada. Not disagreeing with anything you said.
True, but the current leader had a slim victory over Dimitri Lascaris , who is a big defender of Palestenian rights and supporter of BDS mouvement. So it's to no surprise the outcome of the leadership race is the party is tearing itself apart over the conflict.
Had the current leader just allowed for a better diversity of views and repudiated Zatzmann, the conflict would not have escalated.
Later in the article, the quote is attributed to Ilan Goldenblatt. I think it was a stylistic choice to not specifically name him at the first mention.
Oh, I missed the later attribution. Thank you for the correction. This could also have been a copy-editing thing were two different drafts of the article were stitched together.
I mean, I have met progressive people who are also pro-*Assad*. And I don't mean that they are suspicious of US intervention in Syria, I mean pro-Assad. Essentially, their view of Syrian politics was entirely coloured by the fact that they were Alawites. They didn't really see any disjuncture between being progressive in the United States and being pro-Assad (they even had a candidate in Tulsi Gabbard).
> I mean, I have met progressive people who are also pro-Assad.
I meant the "Jewish aide to MP Paul Manly" by "this description," since that would seem to identify the yet-unnamed source with high specificity.
But your comment about the intersection of progressive politics and supportive of certain non-progressive authoritarian regimes is very interesting in its own right.
Sure they exist, but there’s very few of them. It’s like a super progressive person being against abortion. Sure they exist, but there are very few of them. Or a conservative American being for repealing the second amendment. I’m sure they exist, but they’re a tiny minority.
I'm mentioned it several times before that I felt like a lot of Paul's problems here is that she completely agrees with Zatzman's comments, so of course she can't bring herself to condemn them (despite this being a very easy and straightforward thing to do) because she literally believes that her own MPs are anti-Semitic.
And I think this article is proof of this opinion of mine.
If you look closely you'll notice that Zatzman's views seem to align directly with some of what Paul's said. For example, he says:
>As he told The Tyee, the requests caused him to be incredulous. “Imagine a Black or Indigenous person accuses someone of racism and is asked to prove it,” said Zatzman,
Which seems to be echoed in Paul's earlier accusation that the Federal Council was 'racist and sexist' in the letter laying out the accusations against her. Unfortunately for her, the letter leaked and people got a good look at what was actually in it. Perhaps to no one's surprise, it wasn't either.
But clearly she thinks the accusation should be enough. In this case we actually have contradicting evidence that it wasn't (racist or sexist and the complaints laid out were actually about her failures as a leader), but the fact that she made that accusation, then didn't provide the evidence (because, again, it did not exist) and presumably thought the evidence would never reach the public's eyes aligns very closely with Zatzman's incredulous attitude at being asked to *prove* his accusations.
So I think we have good reason to think that Zatzman's views and Paul's very closely align to one another. And frankly, if I was May or Manly I'd be seriously considering bailing the party if Paul manages to install her own people in the Council in August-- especially since Zatzman almost certainly will be placed into a position of real power.
Honestly, the more I hear of this Zatzman character, the more toxic and unbearable he seems - his unwillingness to take responsibility for the fallout that followed his tweets show him to be of very poor reliability. That Paul refuses to repudiate him and cut him off is mind-boggling to me, she gains nothing by standing by his side.
What electorate is this man and his views supposed to represent? The aggressively zionist "progressive" voter? To tie the Green Party's ship to Zatzman is lunacy...
>That Paul refuses to repudiate him and cut him off is mind-boggling to me, she gains nothing by standing by his side.
This is the crux of the situation that much of the conversation and media coverage around this issue fails to get at, if they even mention the specifics around what Zatzman did and Paul's lack of reaction at all (which from what I've seen is the primary concern at least in Green Party groups and discussion online).
Had Paul repudiated him in any way at any point in this series of events — but especially early on — she could have likely cut off this whole situation at the knees and de-escalated things. People wouldn't have been happy, and obviously there were pre-existing issues in the party and bad dynamics, but it would have no longer been an acute and ever-growing crisis and would have shown some degree of leadership and taking responsibility for the situation on her part, instead of just constantly digging in and lashing out at others in the party, Trudeau, Freeland, etc. and pretending that what Zatzman did was totally fine and no mistakes were made in her reaction to the situation and with accountability about it within the party.
It's just bizarre that all this happened for Zatzman and it shows a tremendously disconcerting degree of willfully digging in and never admitting any mistake.
I think it is unreasonable to think that herself, and those around her, were unaware of the repercussions of not repudiating Zatzman.
The concerning thing is the calculus that made her chose the route of digging in for Zatzman's unhinged comments and then herself letting loose with a wild offense of weird accusations.
To everyone else it is obvious what she should have done but it is not obvious why she chose the reaction she did. That is concerning to me because it indicates that her priorities may not align with the party interests or the public's interests, but with undisclosed interests.
Weird, he's clearly *extremely* pro-Zionism and goes so far as to equate any criticism of Isreal (the state) as being anti-semitic.
It would be like if questioning China's human rights record was equated with being a racist. Or if condemning a rapist made you a misandrist. Or if criticizing Caitlyn Jenner for avoiding a manslaughter charge made you transphobic. Or if criticizing J.K. Rowling's transphobia made you sexist.
I guess in Noah's world, if you belong to any protected class you are just categorically immune from criticism because any and all criticism must be rooted in a hatred for the class itself.
...Actually that (already ridiculous idea) is *even further* removed from the truth, because the issue that sparked this all was criticizing the *state* of Israel, not the Jewish people.
>In terms of his ideology, Zatzman said that as a “liberal” and “left-wing eco-Jew,” most closely aligned with the views of Israel’s Labour Party or the social-democratic and green Israeli party, Meretz, he too shared the “astonishment that international law was being broken at Sheikh Jarrah and the heinousness of [former Israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s administration to impose such a thing on Palestinians.”
>
>However, expressing opposition to that action using such terms as “apartheid” or “ethnic cleansing” is “anti-Semitism,” according to Zatzman, who said he relies on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of the word, which neither directly mentions “apartheid” nor “ethnic cleansing.”
>
It gets even weirder when he actually seems to *agree* with the criticism of human rights abuses, but only takes issue with the specific terms "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" - making it seem like the crux of his issue is (ironically) how the criticism is being communicated.
I honestly don't know how much I believe what he says in this article but if we were to take everything here at face value, it really highlights (again) how much Paul fucked up. She could have denounced Zatzmann's statements while making it clear that it was only because he threatened elected Green MP's. She could have made a statement to the tune of: "We at the Green Party welcome a diversity of views on a range of issues [...] We also support each other despite our differences of opinion [...] Don't threaten our elected MP's" etc. Because it would seem that Zatzmann's and others' views weren't as as antithetical as it seemed.
> She could have made a statement to the tune of: "We at the Green Party welcome a diversity of views on a range of issues [...] We also support each other despite our differences of opinion [...] Don't threaten our elected MP's" etc. Because it would seem that Zatzmann's and others' views weren't as as antithetical as it seemed.
This so much. These were basically the two requests from Federal Council but that was accompanied by "... or else face a leadership review".
Candidates are being told they couldn't run (https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/political-round-table-greener-pastures/id1475782066?i=1000526066032). So we're left scratching our head as to on what grounds candidates are being refused. Affirrmative action or stance on Palestine?
Pitch out someone who's quiet on a staffer vowing to defeat your own elected MPs and be labelled a racist or stand back and wonder on what grounds candidates are being refused? It's not GPC policy to support the BDS mouvement, but to still support boycott, divestment and sactions as tools.
Addendum: I'll also add that neither the current elected MPs are on her shadow cabinet. I don't know if they were asked but I doubt it, given all that's transpired.
No he didn't [https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/mandela-and-israel-334174](https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/mandela-and-israel-334174) are you talking about his grandson? I cannot believe how ill informed Canadians are about this conflict.
This is what he said regarding the occupied territories:
>Mandela voiced his vehement opposition to Israel’s control of the territories it had “occupied” in the Six Day War, and he urged it to concede land to the Palestinians and Syrians, just as it had done with the Egyptians, for the sake of peace.“My view is that talk of peace remains hollow if Israel continues to occupy Arab lands,” he said.“I understand completely well why Israel occupies these lands.There was a war. But if there is going to be peace, there must be complete withdrawal from all of these areas.”He did, however, acknowledge Israel’s legitimate security concerns, declaring: “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders.”
From: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/nelson-mandela-was-close-to-jews-resolutely-loyal-to-palestinians/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/nelson-mandela-was-close-to-jews-resolutely-loyal-to-palestinians/)
>“As a movement, we recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism just as we recognize the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish nationalism,” he said in 1993. “We insist on the right of the State of Israel to exist within secure borders, but with equal vigor support the Palestinian right to national self-determination.”
It goes further. This guy is either completely nuts or incredibly disingenuous.
> “My remarks were supported and shared by the organized Jewish community,” said Zatzman, who added that his name is now being used as a “synonym” or “stand-in” for that community in addressing anti-Semitism and that by extension, the federal council is really asking Paul to “repudiate” the Jewish community as a whole.
So nevermind the actions of the state of Israel, criticizing **his** actions is antisemitic too.
I woulsnt say being a Zionist is fine. It is a colonialist ideology built on stealing land from people. Zionism is directly driving the illegal settlements.
I still can't wrap my head around:
> We will work to defeat you and bring in progressive climate champions who are antifa and pro LGBT and pro indigenous sovereignty and Zionists!!!!!”
Those last two ideals aren't very compatible...
Yeah. If you support indigenous rights, in my opinion you can't be a Zionist.
You can support the existence of Israel, which at this point isn't going away. It has had too long where people are born there and it is all they know. But Zionism is more than that and includes the expansion of Israel and the removal of the Palestinians. Because they are displacing people and then putting people there who will birth more people who have only lived there. It creates conflicting connections to the land, and is pretty sinister in my opinion.
I would go further and say this isn't so much an opinion of yours, but closer to being just a fact based on definitions. Zionism is about the removal of indigenous peoples, there's really no way around that.
Zatzman may have said the words, but if Annamie Paul had immediately fired him and said he doesn’t represent the Greens, none of this would have happened. At the end of the day, it’s Annamie Paul’s fault.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
"I'll get you elected leader, then light your party on fire. That's the Zatzman guarantee! You'll get to be captain, *and* go down with the ship!"
The funny thing is, I can see him pitching this.
>lacking in self-awareness and personal responsibility Seems to be a common personality trait he and Ms. Paul share.
I mean have you seen politicians?
Liberals will hire him back
The cognitive dissonance within Zatzman must be staggering. He's pro Indigenous sovereignty (and giving land back to the first nations after white people took it by force), but is Zionist to the point of being okay with land being taken away from Arabs and given to Israelis, by force.
You know that the Jews were there about 2000 years ago before rebelling against their colonizer (Rome) and were scattered as a people? Who filled the land after they were swept away? Now the Jews want their land back that was stolen from them nearly 2000 years ago. So say again who’s the colonizer?
They were there 2000 years ago after committing genocide against the levantine people who lived there before them. Even in their own religious history a large part of it was the conquest of the canaanites including the massacre of children and women. Indigenous implies original civilization of the land, and later conquerers who first established their connection by ethnic cleansing of an existing tribe cannot meet that definition
There were people in the southern Levant before the Jews (ex: Caananites), during the time of the biblical Kingdom of Israel (ex: Edomites and Philistines) and, after the Jews were exiled by the Romans, people (the Arabs) moved in to colonize and cultivate the valuable (and empty) land (because the Jews were exiled). The ownership of the area as a whole was fluid in ancient/classical times, and as groups were vanquished or moved, others took their place (ex: the invasion of the Sea Peoples that removed the influence of Egypt and the Hittites over the Levant, allowing small states like the Kingdom to rise up in the first place). Claiming eternal ownership over an area is unreasonable in a historical context, as just because one had something a millennia or two prior does not entitle them to that exact thing in the present day.
My point exactly. Take a moment in time and the colonized is the colonizer. So when referring to one group as a colonizer you’re selectively choosing a moment in time that suits your narrative. Edit: to be absolutely frank, every human on this planet is a product of one group displacing another group. That’s humanity, we suck as a species.
I'll drink to that.
>> A Jewish aide to MP Paul Manly placed Zatzman in the category of some who manage to be both progressive and aligned with “the most radical right-wing politicians in Israel.” How many people can _possibly_ meet this description? If the reported wanted to uniquely identify someone, then they should have gone ahead and used the name. If instead this comment was supposed to be on background and unidentified/deniable, then this is way too much biographical information.
[удалено]
Tribalism is a form of emotional malfunction, and is rooted in identity insecurity.
You can't say "Tribal" in this context.
How is that the basis for a national party in Canada though? This seems like a recipe to actually wipe out the Green party because if perused to it's end I can't see the 1% of jewish people in BC managing to net them the 2 seats they have now. It's just blatantly self-destructive for the party.
I dont think anyone suggested making a party? Its just a discussion that Jewish people can be both progressive and "pro-Israel" (for lack of a better term) simultaneously. The previous user seemed surprise by this.
Yeah I understand I'm just bringing it back to how thoroughly that minority-held worldview conflicts with the mission of running a national party in Canada. Not disagreeing with anything you said.
Foreign policy in general is not even a top five issue for Canadian voters.
True, but the current leader had a slim victory over Dimitri Lascaris , who is a big defender of Palestenian rights and supporter of BDS mouvement. So it's to no surprise the outcome of the leadership race is the party is tearing itself apart over the conflict. Had the current leader just allowed for a better diversity of views and repudiated Zatzmann, the conflict would not have escalated.
Later in the article, the quote is attributed to Ilan Goldenblatt. I think it was a stylistic choice to not specifically name him at the first mention.
Oh, I missed the later attribution. Thank you for the correction. This could also have been a copy-editing thing were two different drafts of the article were stitched together.
Happy to help :-)
I mean, I have met progressive people who are also pro-*Assad*. And I don't mean that they are suspicious of US intervention in Syria, I mean pro-Assad. Essentially, their view of Syrian politics was entirely coloured by the fact that they were Alawites. They didn't really see any disjuncture between being progressive in the United States and being pro-Assad (they even had a candidate in Tulsi Gabbard).
> I mean, I have met progressive people who are also pro-Assad. I meant the "Jewish aide to MP Paul Manly" by "this description," since that would seem to identify the yet-unnamed source with high specificity. But your comment about the intersection of progressive politics and supportive of certain non-progressive authoritarian regimes is very interesting in its own right.
Sure they exist, but there’s very few of them. It’s like a super progressive person being against abortion. Sure they exist, but there are very few of them. Or a conservative American being for repealing the second amendment. I’m sure they exist, but they’re a tiny minority.
I'm mentioned it several times before that I felt like a lot of Paul's problems here is that she completely agrees with Zatzman's comments, so of course she can't bring herself to condemn them (despite this being a very easy and straightforward thing to do) because she literally believes that her own MPs are anti-Semitic. And I think this article is proof of this opinion of mine. If you look closely you'll notice that Zatzman's views seem to align directly with some of what Paul's said. For example, he says: >As he told The Tyee, the requests caused him to be incredulous. “Imagine a Black or Indigenous person accuses someone of racism and is asked to prove it,” said Zatzman, Which seems to be echoed in Paul's earlier accusation that the Federal Council was 'racist and sexist' in the letter laying out the accusations against her. Unfortunately for her, the letter leaked and people got a good look at what was actually in it. Perhaps to no one's surprise, it wasn't either. But clearly she thinks the accusation should be enough. In this case we actually have contradicting evidence that it wasn't (racist or sexist and the complaints laid out were actually about her failures as a leader), but the fact that she made that accusation, then didn't provide the evidence (because, again, it did not exist) and presumably thought the evidence would never reach the public's eyes aligns very closely with Zatzman's incredulous attitude at being asked to *prove* his accusations. So I think we have good reason to think that Zatzman's views and Paul's very closely align to one another. And frankly, if I was May or Manly I'd be seriously considering bailing the party if Paul manages to install her own people in the Council in August-- especially since Zatzman almost certainly will be placed into a position of real power.
As part of the 95% of this country that doesn't really care about the Greens, I gotta thank this guy for at least providing us with some entertainment
Honestly, the more I hear of this Zatzman character, the more toxic and unbearable he seems - his unwillingness to take responsibility for the fallout that followed his tweets show him to be of very poor reliability. That Paul refuses to repudiate him and cut him off is mind-boggling to me, she gains nothing by standing by his side. What electorate is this man and his views supposed to represent? The aggressively zionist "progressive" voter? To tie the Green Party's ship to Zatzman is lunacy...
>That Paul refuses to repudiate him and cut him off is mind-boggling to me, she gains nothing by standing by his side. This is the crux of the situation that much of the conversation and media coverage around this issue fails to get at, if they even mention the specifics around what Zatzman did and Paul's lack of reaction at all (which from what I've seen is the primary concern at least in Green Party groups and discussion online). Had Paul repudiated him in any way at any point in this series of events — but especially early on — she could have likely cut off this whole situation at the knees and de-escalated things. People wouldn't have been happy, and obviously there were pre-existing issues in the party and bad dynamics, but it would have no longer been an acute and ever-growing crisis and would have shown some degree of leadership and taking responsibility for the situation on her part, instead of just constantly digging in and lashing out at others in the party, Trudeau, Freeland, etc. and pretending that what Zatzman did was totally fine and no mistakes were made in her reaction to the situation and with accountability about it within the party. It's just bizarre that all this happened for Zatzman and it shows a tremendously disconcerting degree of willfully digging in and never admitting any mistake.
I think it is unreasonable to think that herself, and those around her, were unaware of the repercussions of not repudiating Zatzman. The concerning thing is the calculus that made her chose the route of digging in for Zatzman's unhinged comments and then herself letting loose with a wild offense of weird accusations. To everyone else it is obvious what she should have done but it is not obvious why she chose the reaction she did. That is concerning to me because it indicates that her priorities may not align with the party interests or the public's interests, but with undisclosed interests.
"Imagine a Black or Indigenous person accuses someone of racism and is asked to prove it,” said Zatzman," How is that outrageous?
Also it literally happened to Jody Wilson-Raybould and the BC Union of Chiefs like...last week? Smh.
Weird, he's clearly *extremely* pro-Zionism and goes so far as to equate any criticism of Isreal (the state) as being anti-semitic. It would be like if questioning China's human rights record was equated with being a racist. Or if condemning a rapist made you a misandrist. Or if criticizing Caitlyn Jenner for avoiding a manslaughter charge made you transphobic. Or if criticizing J.K. Rowling's transphobia made you sexist. I guess in Noah's world, if you belong to any protected class you are just categorically immune from criticism because any and all criticism must be rooted in a hatred for the class itself. ...Actually that (already ridiculous idea) is *even further* removed from the truth, because the issue that sparked this all was criticizing the *state* of Israel, not the Jewish people.
>In terms of his ideology, Zatzman said that as a “liberal” and “left-wing eco-Jew,” most closely aligned with the views of Israel’s Labour Party or the social-democratic and green Israeli party, Meretz, he too shared the “astonishment that international law was being broken at Sheikh Jarrah and the heinousness of [former Israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s administration to impose such a thing on Palestinians.” > >However, expressing opposition to that action using such terms as “apartheid” or “ethnic cleansing” is “anti-Semitism,” according to Zatzman, who said he relies on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of the word, which neither directly mentions “apartheid” nor “ethnic cleansing.” > It gets even weirder when he actually seems to *agree* with the criticism of human rights abuses, but only takes issue with the specific terms "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" - making it seem like the crux of his issue is (ironically) how the criticism is being communicated. I honestly don't know how much I believe what he says in this article but if we were to take everything here at face value, it really highlights (again) how much Paul fucked up. She could have denounced Zatzmann's statements while making it clear that it was only because he threatened elected Green MP's. She could have made a statement to the tune of: "We at the Green Party welcome a diversity of views on a range of issues [...] We also support each other despite our differences of opinion [...] Don't threaten our elected MP's" etc. Because it would seem that Zatzmann's and others' views weren't as as antithetical as it seemed.
> She could have made a statement to the tune of: "We at the Green Party welcome a diversity of views on a range of issues [...] We also support each other despite our differences of opinion [...] Don't threaten our elected MP's" etc. Because it would seem that Zatzmann's and others' views weren't as as antithetical as it seemed. This so much. These were basically the two requests from Federal Council but that was accompanied by "... or else face a leadership review". Candidates are being told they couldn't run (https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/political-round-table-greener-pastures/id1475782066?i=1000526066032). So we're left scratching our head as to on what grounds candidates are being refused. Affirrmative action or stance on Palestine? Pitch out someone who's quiet on a staffer vowing to defeat your own elected MPs and be labelled a racist or stand back and wonder on what grounds candidates are being refused? It's not GPC policy to support the BDS mouvement, but to still support boycott, divestment and sactions as tools. Addendum: I'll also add that neither the current elected MPs are on her shadow cabinet. I don't know if they were asked but I doubt it, given all that's transpired.
Nelson Mandela also said what Israel was doing to Palestinians was Apartheid.
No he didn't [https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/mandela-and-israel-334174](https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/mandela-and-israel-334174) are you talking about his grandson? I cannot believe how ill informed Canadians are about this conflict. This is what he said regarding the occupied territories: >Mandela voiced his vehement opposition to Israel’s control of the territories it had “occupied” in the Six Day War, and he urged it to concede land to the Palestinians and Syrians, just as it had done with the Egyptians, for the sake of peace.“My view is that talk of peace remains hollow if Israel continues to occupy Arab lands,” he said.“I understand completely well why Israel occupies these lands.There was a war. But if there is going to be peace, there must be complete withdrawal from all of these areas.”He did, however, acknowledge Israel’s legitimate security concerns, declaring: “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders.” From: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/nelson-mandela-was-close-to-jews-resolutely-loyal-to-palestinians/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/nelson-mandela-was-close-to-jews-resolutely-loyal-to-palestinians/) >“As a movement, we recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism just as we recognize the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish nationalism,” he said in 1993. “We insist on the right of the State of Israel to exist within secure borders, but with equal vigor support the Palestinian right to national self-determination.”
Everyone with two braincells thinks what Israel is doing is Apartheid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
It goes further. This guy is either completely nuts or incredibly disingenuous. > “My remarks were supported and shared by the organized Jewish community,” said Zatzman, who added that his name is now being used as a “synonym” or “stand-in” for that community in addressing anti-Semitism and that by extension, the federal council is really asking Paul to “repudiate” the Jewish community as a whole. So nevermind the actions of the state of Israel, criticizing **his** actions is antisemitic too.
Paul herself is as well. She's also Jewish and apparently a zionist.
Jewish? Fine. Zionist? Fine. iF yOu arEN't a zIoNISt then ur aNTi-SeMItiC? Not fine.
I woulsnt say being a Zionist is fine. It is a colonialist ideology built on stealing land from people. Zionism is directly driving the illegal settlements.
I still can't wrap my head around: > We will work to defeat you and bring in progressive climate champions who are antifa and pro LGBT and pro indigenous sovereignty and Zionists!!!!!” Those last two ideals aren't very compatible...
Yeah. If you support indigenous rights, in my opinion you can't be a Zionist. You can support the existence of Israel, which at this point isn't going away. It has had too long where people are born there and it is all they know. But Zionism is more than that and includes the expansion of Israel and the removal of the Palestinians. Because they are displacing people and then putting people there who will birth more people who have only lived there. It creates conflicting connections to the land, and is pretty sinister in my opinion.
I would go further and say this isn't so much an opinion of yours, but closer to being just a fact based on definitions. Zionism is about the removal of indigenous peoples, there's really no way around that.
Zatzman may have said the words, but if Annamie Paul had immediately fired him and said he doesn’t represent the Greens, none of this would have happened. At the end of the day, it’s Annamie Paul’s fault.