Why Standing Together shouldn’t be given a platform at Green Party conference
In his recent article, Craig Simmons urges the Green Party not to “ban” Palestinian peace activist Sally Abed from addressing its upcoming conference, warning that doing so would play into the hands of Israel’s right-wing government. His piece, however, misses crucial context, mischaracterises the BDS movement’s legitimate concerns, and ultimately risks undermining the very Palestinian voices it claims to uplift.
Let us be clear: this is not about banning Palestinians. This is about respecting Palestinian-led strategy. The demand to withdraw an invitation to Friends Of Standing Together (FOST), affiliates of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, and representatives of Standing Together (ST) stems not from a desire to suppress dialogue, but from a principled commitment to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign, a grassroots movement led by Palestinian civil society since 2005. The Green Party officially supports BDS and has adopted this as policy. That means aligning not just in sentiment, but in practice.
Platforming boycotted groups erodes Palestinian self-determination
Standing Together is an organisation explicitly boycotted under BDS guidelines due to its refusal to endorse BDS and its efforts to create partnerships between Israeli and Palestinian citizens without addressing the structures of apartheid, occupation, and colonisation that underpin their relationship. While ST may contain individuals with sincere intentions, their model of “co-resistance” normalises a false equivalency between occupier and occupied.
To invite a speaker from FOST or ST is not neutral. It’s a political choice, a decision to prioritise a narrative of coexistence that has been widely rejected by Palestinian civil society as ineffective and counterproductive. ST may criticise Netanyahu, but they do not support full Palestinian liberation as defined by the three core demands of BDS: ending the occupation, equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the right of return for refugees. Without these, there is no justice, only managed oppression.
Radical empathy must start with listening
Simmons appeals to “radical empathy,” but empathy begins with listening. The overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society, including unions, women’s groups, and human rights organisations, have called for a cultural and institutional boycott of Israeli groups that undermine their struggle. When they say don’t platform FOST, the ethical response is not to question their motives or dismiss them as “narrow” or “hardline.” It is to respect the strategy Palestinians have chosen for their own liberation.
We must be vigilant against tactics that seek to reframe principled disagreement as censorship. The decision to uphold a boycott is not about silencing, it’s about solidarity. No one is stopping Sally Abed from speaking publicly. But the Green Party, which claims to stand in solidarity with Palestine, has every right, and in fact, an obligation, not to give a party-endorsed platform to an organisation that violates the terms of that solidarity.
Solidarity is not symbolism
The claim that ST is hated by the Israeli right is a poor metric for evaluating their alignment with justice. Many liberal Zionist organisations also face hostility from Israeli extremists, yet still uphold the apartheid system. Criticism from the right is not a badge of honour if it coincides with erasure of Palestinian agency.
Simmons compares Standing Together to peace activists during the Northern Ireland Troubles. But even that analogy falters. Genuine peacebuilding only began in Northern Ireland when power imbalances were acknowledged and addressed, not glossed over by calls for dialogue that ignore historical injustice.
True solidarity means recognising that Palestinians are not passive recipients of international sympathy, but active agents in their struggle. Their call for BDS is a call for accountability, not conversation for its own sake.
We must do better than “both sides”
Finally, Simmons warns that denying a platform to ST would “please Netanyahu.” But what truly pleases Netanyahu, and indeed all defenders of apartheid, is confusion, division, and a blurring of lines between resistance and appeasement. Inviting organisations that refuse to challenge the foundations of Israeli apartheid creates precisely that confusion. It suggests that there are “many valid perspectives,” when in fact, there is a clearly articulated call from the oppressed that is being ignored.
The Green Party must decide whether it wants to be in alignment with that call or not. The presence of FOST at conference would not be a moment of “radical empathy,” but of radical betrayal.
We cannot claim to stand with Palestine while undermining the unified, strategic voice of its people. If we are serious about justice, then we must do more than signal support, we must practice principled solidarity.
Great to campaign in poetry but now the aim seems to be to make solidarity history.
“It’s the 4th October – Jews, Irish dockworkers, trade unionists, communists, socialists, workers, fellow migrants, people— building barricades. Not armed with weapons but with collective solidarity. 300,000 of them. 300,00 people saying no – standing together in their diversity – – 300,000 people together and shouting “They shall not pass!”
Zack Polanski, Green Party Annual Conference, 2024
This article fundamentally misunderstands Standing Together and also includes some falsehoods which I hope Bright Green will publish a correction of in the spirit of journalistic ethics.
In contrast to the statements in the article, Standing Together does vehemently oppose the occupation and calls for equality among all people in Israel and Palestine. Its published Theory of Change acknowledges the existing imbalance of power between Israeli Jews and Palestines and includes active measures to counter these.
https://www.standing-together.org/en/about-en
Standing Together explicitly believes ‘The fight for Palestinian Liberation is multi-faceted’. Their focus is on resistance within Israel, building a broad movement that seeks to end the war and the occupation in the first instance and relieve the mass suffering of Palestinians. To insist that all campaigners for peace and equality in Israel and Palestine must employ exactly the same tactics is surely self-harming to the cause.
BDS was never intended to silence Palestinian voices opposed to Israel’s occupation & genocide. Let Abed speak. Standing Together does great work in bringing Israelis and Palestinians together against the denial of Palestinian rights. The greatest current Palestinian leader, Marwan Barghouti, has encouraged dialogue and diverse campaigns to secure his people’s liberation, including dialogue with progressive Israelis.
Grassroots peace group not welcome at Green Conference! Er – just how irrelevant does the Green Party plan to be?
BDS was never intended to silence Palestinian voices opposed to Israel’s occupation & genocide. Let Abed speak. Standing Together does great work in bringing Israelis and Palestinians together against the denial of Palestinian rights. The greatest current Palestinian leader, Marwan Barghouti, has encouraged dialogue and diverse campaigns to secure his people’s liberation, including dialogue with progressive Israelis.
Well said Lubna. To those who claim that we should have dialogue with ST/FOST, my response is there are plenty of Israelis who acknowledge that Israel is an apartheid state, with what is currently a genocidal government. Even more progressive ones stole Palestinian land and oppressed Palestinian, and would often torture and murder them as well
“ST leadership’s anti-Palestinian racist rhetoric” Whaaaaaaat. Has the author actually heard any of ST’s Jewish or Palestinian leaders? For example Angela Mattar, one of many Palestinian leaders of ST, “We are resistance! Standing Together is nothing like normalisation! We live in the fire! We’re building partnerships for change from within in hard circumstances. Those who accuse us of normalisation are on the outside. We are the internal resistance!”
There is an implicit assumption here that to allow someone to speak – in the contemporary parlance, ‘platforming’ – is to imply support. If this is the case then the Green Party should not be seeking to have MPs in Commons because it implies support for opposing parties: we should follow Sinn zFeinn’s example. The logical message this strategy sends is “we will only listen to people we agree with”. It implies a fear that party members will be persuaded by their arguments and a desire to control their thinking. The argument presented here is that the Green Party has made an agreement with other groups who object to this group that they will cede control over who may or may not speak to party members to outside organisations. It implies a refusal to even consider a change of strategy. It carries an equal assumption that others are incapable of changing their strategy or being open to challenge. ‘Boycotting’ is not about closing ears – it’s about severing economic ties. It’s possible to have a conversation with a representative of an organisation your own organisation is boycotting. There are occasions when it is not acceptable to give a platform to speakers : when it is a public platform such as an election hustings and there is a reasonable belief that the speaker in question will incite religious or ethnic hatred or violence (for instance). I’m curious as to why the possibility of this representative speaking is on the agenda anyway — did they ask to speak? Did some GP members invite them to speak, or suggest it (in which case this is a matter of shutting down our own members)?
Situations of extreme polarisation are rarely resolved without clandestine meetings between opposing groups. Nelson Mandela had meetings with P W Botha. Go-betweens were facilitating conversations between the IRA and the British government. In the end, a (probable) IRA commander ended up as a minister in a shared government. Where does this fit on the line between private, off-the-record, meetings and meeting in full public view? If the decision is taken not to allow this person to speak, I hope that nonetheless Green Party representatives will be maintaining contact (behind the scenes if necessary) with all parties in this long-running tragic conflict. It is what we would have to do if we were in government, and I joined the party precisely because I wanted to help it look less like a protest movement and more like a government in waiting.
I was a Green Party city councillor in Oxford for the 12 years 2010-2022
There is a lot in your article that I disagree with, but that it surely the point of dialogue. To discuss and debate with others to try and reach some form of consensus. But rather than unpick the detail, my key point is that you are confounding BDS boycotts with dialogue initiated by the Green Party as information-gathering at a fringe meeting. One does not exclude the other. In fact, to draw on your own imperfect parallels with apartheid South Africa, the boycotts were very much a mechanism used to open up communications with targeted organisations (though these were often initiated by third parties). The Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) actively initiated dialogues with many of its targets. This was critical in dismantling apartheid and the peaceful transition of power in South Africa.
Though the BDS movement itself is rather more ‘hardline’ than the AAM (it tends to issue open letters and ultimatums rather than actively promoting two-way dialogue), the Green Party is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the BDS Movement. It is free to continue to evolve its own policies over time in line with its own philosophical basis (our core values are strong on engagement). Such policy enquiry requires information gathering and engagement such as that proposed for the conference fringe where Sally Abed was due to speak. This may, at some distant point in the future lead to a change in policy over the Green Party’s support for the BDS Movement. It may not. As you clearly state in your response to my article, “empathy begins with listening”.
Fantastic article. As an Israeli organisation that doesn’t explicitly affirm and work towards the rights of all Palestinians, Standing Together is subject to the boycott of Israel and its cultural institutions that Green Party members have repeatedly voted in favour of through support for the BDS movement. The Green Party must uphold the democratic will of its membership.
I don’t know where you got your information about Standing Together from but it does not reflect the truth. Standing Together are a peace and social justice organisation with a Palestinian co-leader and many Palestinian members. Of course they work for the rights of Palestinians – they are very clear on this.
The Green Party has only ever had two votes on BDS. The first one was over 15 years ago when BDS was focussed on strategic, targeted boycotts (not academic, cultural or sports). The second vote was a year ago and, unlike the first vote, there was no discussion before the vote on what supporting BDS would mean.
In my original article I never referred to the BDS Movement. It was only mentioned in this response to my piece. The reason I did not mention them was that 1) it is for the Green Party to decide who they allow to speak and have a stall at conference and 2) neither Standing Together or Friends of Standing Together are on the BDS Boycott List. It is the PACBI (one of the many constituent parts of the BDS National Committee) that have called for a boycott. It could, at most, be argued that the BNC implicitly supports a boycott. For info, here is the BDS Boycott List. Only the first group is subject to a full boycott.
1. Consumer Boycott Priority Targets (BDS-Initiated)
These are brands selected for their direct complicity, such as providing services to Israeli military/prison systems, operating in settlements, or supporting apartheid structures. BDS calls for a full consumer boycott.
• Hewlett Packard (HP) Inc. (US): Provides servers, tech services, and biometric ID systems to Israeli prisons and checkpoints enforcing apartheid; involved in settlement infrastructure.
• Puma (Germany): Sponsors the Israel Football Association, which includes teams in illegal West Bank settlements.
• AXA (France): Insurance giant invested in Israeli banks, arms companies (e.g., Elbit Systems), and settlement projects; BDS calls for boycott until full divestment (partial divestments noted in 2024-2025).
• Chevron (US): Fossil fuel company extracting gas from Gaza’s offshore fields under Israeli control, funding occupation; BDS prioritizes picketing stations and refineries.
• Microsoft (US): Most complicit tech firm; provides AI/cloud services (e.g., Azure) to Israeli military for surveillance and targeting in Gaza; expanding ties via Project Nimbus.
• Reebok (Germany/US): Sponsors the Israel Football Association, similar to Puma, supporting colonial sports structures in settlements.
• Coca-Cola (US): Operates factories in illegal settlements; provides support to Israeli military outposts.
2. Organic Boycott Targets (Grassroots-Initiated, BDS-Endorsed)
These emerged from global grassroots actions (not started by BDS) but are supported due to donations to Israeli forces, franchisee support for the military amid the Gaza genocide, or other complicity. BDS endorses escalating these where active.
• McDonald’s (US): Franchisees in Israel donated meals to soldiers; perceived pro-Israel stance led to global boycotts.
• Burger King (US): Similar to McDonald’s; Israeli branches/franchisees supported military with free food.
• Pizza Hut (US): Israeli operations donated to troops during the Gaza conflict.
• Papa John’s (US): Provided free pizzas to Israeli soldiers.
• WIX (Israel): Web platform based in Israel; supports occupation economy and has ties to military tech.
• Starbucks (US): Boycotted grassroots due to firing pro-Palestine employees and perceived ties to Israel (not official BDS priority, but BDS supports where organic).
• Zara (Spain/Inditex): BDS officially endorses the grassroots boycott over cotton sourced from stolen Palestinian land and store displays seen as mocking Gaza victims.
3. Divestment and Pressure Targets (For Institutions and Governments)
These are companies for which BDS urges divestment by universities, pension funds, banks, and governments, or sanctions via policy. Focus on arms, tech, and finance complicit in occupation/genocide. Not direct consumer boycotts but key for institutional action.
• Elbit Systems (Israel): World’s largest private arms supplier to Israeli military; provides drones, surveillance for Gaza bombings and settlements.
• Caterpillar (US): Supplies bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes and build settlements/apartheid wall.
• BAE Systems (UK): Arms manufacturer supplying Israel with components for F-35 jets used in Gaza.
• Google (Alphabet, US): Part of Project Nimbus ($1.2B cloud contract with Israeli government/military for AI surveillance); also funds Israeli startups tied to occupation.
• Amazon (US): Co-leads Project Nimbus; hosts Israeli military data and expands e-commerce in settlements.
• Airbus (Europe): Provides helicopters and components for Israeli attacks on Gaza.
• Leonardo (Italy): Supplies drones and training systems to Israeli forces.
• Motorola Solutions (US): Provides communication tech to Israeli police and settlements.
• General Mills (US): Owns brands like Pillsbury operating factories in illegal settlements
I was somewhat surprised to learn that neither Standing Together or Friends of Standing Together actually appear on the official BDS National Committee boycott list. All the fuss is about calls for a boycott by PACBI (one of about 10 organisations that make up the BNC).
It is incorrect that ST doesn’t explicitly affirm and work towards the rights of all Palestinians. That’s precisely what it does.
https://ukfost.co.uk/solidarity-with-standing-together-a-response-to-calls-for-a-boycott
The movement’s Theory of Change states: “We will take an active role in the struggle to end Israel’s rule over the Palestinian people.” It affirms that, “The current regime serves the interests of a small group — the capitalist financial elite and the settlement-building political elite — at the expense of the majority’s interests”, whilst acknowledging that the regime “remains dependent on the majority’s consent.”