Greens were deliberately setting up the vote to fail, due to procedural motions in the lower house always being opposed.
Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
It failed 80 votes to 5. The 5 included the 4 Greens MPs and independent MP Andrew Wilkie. The fact that there were only 80 noes makes it hard to say precisely who they were and indicates that everyone was so sure it would fail by a large margin that Labor and the LNP didn't bother whipping up their MPs to go vote for it. Disappointing that the other independents didn't bother either.
Half the independents got in on a campaign that they would basically be Liberals except giving a shit about climate change, so we shouldn't really be surprised. Allegra Spender was out there the other day calling the uni encampments anti-semitic 🙄
He is right to an extent, The Greens would have pushed ahead with the vote knowing full well that it would suffer a near unanimous defeat. For them it would have been partially strategical in the sense that they can point to this result in the future as a clear point of moral difference. It was also clearly a sincere motion though, so Watts and Leeser trying to frame it as anything else is pretty stupid. Particularly when neither them nor their respective parties are doing anything to help the situation here or in Gaza.
Disagree. I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think it accurately represents what he said. If he had said "the Greens set this up to fail because Labor has no interest in supporting Palestinian statehood", he would have been right. But he didn't say it would fail because they don't support it, he said it would fail because "it's procedural".
If Labor had decided to amend it to be more clear in what it would accomplish (because it would not, of course, actually result in the nation of Australia recognising Palestine, just the House of Representatives, a mostly meaningless gesture), or if the Labor Foreign Minister had turned around and recognised it officially through their powers, he would have a point. Heck, I'll allow Labor to the end of the week for me to say "hey, actually, Labor did the right thing here". But as it stands right now? Labor has no defence. Anything they try to say is a transparent attempt to avoid saying "we don't support Palestinian statehood" while holding exactly that position.
Good to see we still have bipartisan support for European colonial genocide after all these years!
Really warms my heart knowing that despite all the division these days parasitic rich fucks can still bond over ignoring the rights of people to the land they live on.
I guess genocide is base of Palestiian politics, not Israel. Israel is just fighting a war now, and they did a lot to avoid it.
UN, just another example of "out of touch and destructive"
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.