Greens for Palestine banner

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.