September 11, 2008

Reporting the Green Conference resolution on antisemitism

Posted in british greens, israel at 11:11 am by Mira Vogel

There are some things to clear up about Anshel Pfeffer’s Jewish Chronicle piece.

“The original motion said that antisemitism also included elements of anti-Zionism and called for the Greens to adopt the European Union’s definition of antisemitism.”

The original motion C15 can be found on the Agenda (PDF – see p22). C15 was more qualified and pragmatic than the article suggests. The signs were that it would have been futile to call for the Greens to “adopt” the EUMC definition of antisemitism – instead C15 required that it be “considered”. And C15 did not claim that antisemitism includes anti-Zionism, because this is not always the case and because giving the impression that it was always the case would have jeopardised the motion.

Despite our efforts to raise awareness of a phenomenon without trying to bolt down either the phenomenon or conversation about it, the motion proved too controversial and was pared away to something toothless – well-meaning but not equal to the job.

The article also missed out the very important requirement that Green representatives should condemn antisemitism in the event of unavoidable platform-sharing with antisemitic organisations. Platform-sharing is sometimes inevitable but the Green Party has policy to put clear political distance between us and, say, the BNP. Nevertheless Caroline Lucas has a record of sharing-platforms with Hamas speakers, and of supposing concerns about antisemitism to really have a pro-Israeli purpose.

Lastly, the dreadful fringe on anti-Zionism was off-programme – the conference organising committee had attempted to merge it with another fringe raising awareness about antisemitism but both fringe organisers objected. As a result official status wasn’t offered to either.


September 6, 2008

Green Left conference fringe on ‘Anti-Zionism – a Jewish Perspective’

Posted in antisemitism, british greens at 1:37 am by Mira Vogel

For more on the historical election of Caroline Lucas as the Greens’ first elected leader see the report on the Green Party site.

Shortly before this announcement, there was a Green Left off-programme Fringe ‘Anti-Zionism: a Jewish Perspective‘. I did some leafleting (for our fringe meeting about antisemitism) but it turned out that most of the recipients were non-Greens from the anti-Zionist circuit. There were also a few interested members of the public, but very few Greens. At any rate, when a member of identity politics group Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods started off with “I’m only sorry there are so few Greens here – ” you got the impression she knew most of the faces in the audience. The turnout was a shade over 30, including the Green Party members who joined us after their more pressing engagements (the fringe was off-programme). I got the impression practically everybody was anti-Zionist.

The Chair Joseph Healey gave some necessary background. He explained that the fringe had been suggested because of the height of feeling about the Green boycott of Israel and the subsequent allegations of antisemitism. He didn’t explain why one of its organisers advertised it with a dodgy cartoon. It was strange too that the two speakers were both anti-Zionists. There is, after all, a Jewish consensus on anti-Zionism – namely that it is just an inappropriate response to a very sticky conflict. This omission was a problem – the prevalent ‘Jewish perspective’ was caricatured over the course of the evening with nobody to explain it.

During his presentation Tony Greenstein didn’t define ‘Zionism’ and neither did Simon Lynn who spoke next. It functioned as a code-word for something heinous, yet two examples of anti-Zionism cited by Greenstein – Trotsky’s biographer Isaac Deutscher and the Jewish worker’s movement The Bund – gave up their anti-Zionism in the aftermath of the Holocaust and supported the creation of a Jewish state. The reasons are obvious. Zionism (my basic definition of this is ‘the movement for a Jewish state’) seems to be something past: the Jewish state has been established and exists. Nobody defined Zionism adequately for the present day.  I don’t know of any anti-Zionist who is not for ending the existence of Israel – either by merging it with Palestine or by opening its borders to a critical mass of Palestinians. For these reasons I’m inclined to use ‘anti-Israel’ rather than the obfuscating code term ‘anti-Zionist’.

Tony Greenstein gave a standard presentation, thin on facts, full on polemic, which boils down to (in bold with my comments in normal weight)

  • Anti-Zionism is a specifically Jewish phenomenon; Zionism is alien to Jews
    But what about Hamas, for example?
  • It is the suppression of dissent in the Jewish community which prevents anti-Zionism from gaining ground
    Is everybody really dishonestly trying to suppress the anti-Zionists  – or is it more that their analysis is bad?
  • The minute anti-Zionist minority excepted, Jews require and welcome antisemitism because it makes their claim to Israel seem more reasonable.
    This amounts to a charge of collective Jewish dishonesty.
  • Antisemitism is used as “ideological political terrorism”
    He said this quite blandly. I can’t remember anybody providing a single example to substantiate this very serious allegation – one Caroline Lucas is has also made, claiming without substantiation, that “Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.” Who? When? What did they say?
  • A real antisemite must also be a Zionist (because antisemites want to be rid of Jews – thus the BNP are rebranding as Zionist).
    This isn’t right but at any rate it doesn’t follow that an anti-Zionist can’t be antisemitic – oh hang on:
  • “…if you are anti-Zionist you cannot be antisemitic”
    Does anybody find this convincing? Or even logical? I fear they do. This is why we decided to name our fringe ‘Criticism of Israel Can be Antisemitic’.

And also, coming out in the questions:

  • The only reason Israeli Jews didn’t get rid of the Palestinians “like the Nazis” were to do with political conditions
  • There is something wrong with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which contains the kind of people who have antisemitic attitudes. We should oppose them because… they help the Zionists!
  • The Green Conference motion raising concerns about antisemitism is strange because antisemitism isn’t a problem – after all, Tony has never experienced it. And after all, Jewish children aren’t getting their heads kicked in on the street.

Tony Greenstein lives in a parallel world to most Jews – one in which history isn’t full of warnings and one in which Israel is a pantomime villain. He didn’t acknowledge any of the threats to Jews in Israel today. He was a poor panellist who moved us no further in this debate. We’re less serious if we take on his analysis or values.

Simon Lynn’s presentation can be sketched as follows:

  • Being anti-Zionist is a matter of conscience
    For me, finding out what is actually going on in Israel, Palestine and the wider region before deciding on action and policy is a matter of conscience – in the absence of that then at least engage with the views of the majority of the population, even if you think you disagree.
  • Many Jews privilege Israel
    Many Jews have a complex relationship with Israel, and many have relatives there. Many of those relatives were refugees, or the descendants of refugees. Jews (not all, but many and probably most) with a sense of history are prone to feel somewhat perched in the countries where they live, and identify Israel as a life raft state, or bolt-hole. You can’t wish this away.
  • Zionism implies Jews can’t live equally with others
    This is a strange claim – can British people live equally with others where they have converged in Andalucia, or should they renounce British citizenship and call for the dismantling of the UK first? Israeli Jews have no other home than Israel, and Israel exists in a region where antisemitism is tolerated and even encouraged. The Hamas Covenant is one example. Anti-nationalism doesn’t look nice when it’s selective.
  • Pro-Israeli activists are trying to scare the anti-Israeli ones
    For pete’s sake. Who? Me? How?
  • Motion 15 is flawed because it suppresses dissent
    There is nothing in that motion which suppresses dissent. It is highly qualified.
  • Motion 15 is flawed because it pre-empts Palestinians and Jews opting for one state
    It doesn’t, there’s an amendment which makes this interpretation even less justified – and speaking for myself I don’t mind if they do. Pressuring them in this direction (by boycotting Israel without realistic objectives, for example) would be unjustifiable and counter to the current wishes according to every poll. Few other than the expansionist Israelis and Palestinians want one state.
  • Israel uses and abuses solidarity for its own means
    More than likely, but there is nevertheless a clear Jewish interest in supporting Israel against those who are trying to cancel it.
  • It is wrong that Jews have the right to return to Israel and Palestinians don’t.
    Under the current negotiated peace plans – Palestinians would have the right to return to Palestine, and Jews to Israel. Negotiations about compensating displaced Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews notwithstanding, like it or not this is a normal way to go about things – my neighbours are here on a Heritage Visa.
  • We must reject hierarchies of oppression
    Agreed but ironic considering it is quite often that pro-Palestine activists subscribe to hierarchies of oppression. Tony Greenstein saying that antisemitism “isn’t a problem” but racism against Palestinians should be our central concern, and that it is impossible to worry about both, is one example. Simon Lynn was somewhat better at acknowledging antisemitism than Tony – but he did not here acknowledge it on the left, perhaps because he considers it to be incontrovertably virtuous.

My perspective:

  • The anti-Zionism I encountered tonight is a highly self-absorbed and sectarian movement which is destined to remain marginal because it proposes no viable, attainable, reasonable solutions to the conflict
  • The internecine quarrels between Jewish anti-Zionists at the meeting and the open antisemites in the Palestine Solidarity Campaign are very important, but the mutual commiserations looked strange.
  • There are plenty of critics of a two state solution – such as former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti  – and no end of Jewish dissenters who are not excluded. In the absence of any examples from the two panelists, my theory is if these people feel marginalised in the Jewish community it is that the Jewish community got tired of being told it was racist, Hitlerian, dishonest, affront to civil rights etc and told them where to go.
  • The absence of any examples of Jews dishonestly invoking antisemitism leaves the people who make that claim on very flimsy ground.
  • I think this is a hideously complicated conflict. I would not want to undermine pro-Palestine activism, and thankfully most of the effective work is going on doggedly without us. The way the case against Israel was made tonight was highly ideological, practically evidence-free, unrelated to the actual circumstances and consequently inadequate as activism.

September 3, 2008

Green Left responds to a motion on antisemitism with an anti-Zionist fringe advertised with an antisemitic cartoon

Posted in antisemitism, british greens, conference tagged at 11:22 pm by Mira Vogel

A group of people who are worried about antisemitism in general, and particularly within the Green Party, submitted a motion to the Green Party Autumn Conference 2008. The text of the motion C15 is available on p22 of the final agenda PDF. The clauses relevant to this particular post below are:

  • “Contemporary antisemitism often uses the language of antizionism.”
  • “The actions and policies of any State may be criticised, provided such criticism is not framed in racist or anti-Semitic terms.”
  • “The EU’s working definition of antisemitism shall be considered when determining what counts as antisemitism.”
  • “Representatives of the Party should condemn antisemitism when obliged to share a platform with (a) individuals who express antisemitic views, and (b) representatives of organisations that endorse antisemitism, and that such sharing of platforms should be discouraged.”

This is not a motion which restricts any freedoms. However, some Green Party members felt very threatened by this motion. They submitted a motion of their own (C16) which includes the following sentence:

“Whilst reaffirming the need to engage with other groups, especially Islamic groups, and supporting Green Party members who do this, the Green Party dissociates itself from any wider agenda. Specifically it rejects any implication of antisemitism.”

No “implication” is provided in this motion. How can we in good conscience consent to reject “any implication of antisemitism”? Any implication, that is – in other words, a hypothetical implication? This doesn’t make sense. It looks very much as if the proposers of this motion hope to innoculate themselves against antisemitism simply by insisting that “It couldn’t happen here”.

Green Left felt it necessary to go even further – “in view of the various motions on anti-Semitism etc” – and so they organised an off-programme fringe titled ‘Anti-Zionism – a Jewish Perspective’ by way of response.

Presenting anti-Zionism from a Jewish perspective, as if that automatically confers immunity from antisemitism, was lame even before one of its organisers, James Caspell, decided to advertise the fringe on his blog with a highly revealing choice of cartoon.

The cartoon (filename: Misuse_of_anti_Semitism_by_Latuff2.jpg) depicts a dismayed man wearing a Free Palestine bandana. Two hands – with a US cuff on one and an Israeli one on the other – are placing a gag over the man’s mouth. On the gag is written the word ‘Anti-semitism’. The cartoonist is Carlos Latuff, runner-up of the revolting Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Competition in 2006 (Ahmedinejad kicking the cat – his idea of payback for the Danish publication of Mohammed cartoons in 2006). In 2004 Latuff had contrived to blame Israel for the death of homeless people in Sao Paulo. He also draws equivalences between Israelis and Nazis and insists that Israelis will not tolerate Palestinians despite a critical mass of Israelis being for an end to the occupation and for two states. How could anybody assert without discussion or reassurance that accusations of antisemitism against him are baseless? To do so would demonstrate political irresponsibility to the extreme.

The point of the cartoon above is that accusations of antisemitism are a coordinated tactic carried out in bad faith to silence the expression of Palestine solidarity; it is the graphical version of the Livingstone formulation. Green Left uses an antisemitic cartoonist to accuse fellow Green Party members who are trying to take action against antisemitism of bad faith.

This is dangerous because it strengthens a growing current of opinion in this country that allegations of antisemitism – specifically allegations of political antisemitism which take more work and more historical awareness to understand than the street antisemitism of a desecrated gravestone or open talk of Jewish degeneracy – should be recognised as a tactic to prevent Palestinian self-determination. This is groundless and damaging. Palestinian self-determination is an urgent cause in itself – but antisemitism can and does attach itself to that cause. The job of any Palestine solidarity campaigner is to fight for Palestinian rights without undermining the relatively recent well-being and relative security of Jews by permitting political antisemitism to attach itself to their campaign.

Mira Vogel and Raphael Levy.

September 1, 2008

A Green Party Autumn 08 Conference fringe on antisemitism

Posted in antisemitism, british greens, event at 10:31 pm by Mira Vogel

We hope that Green Party conference delegates and others will join us for

A Green Party Conference Fringe:

Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic

Saturday 6th September 2008, 6.00pm – 6:50pm
The Plough* function room, 27 Museum St, WC1A 1LH (7 minutes’ walk from SOAS)

Speaker: David Hirsh (Engage)

Chaired by Chris Fox, Colchester Green Party

This fringe relates to and directly precedes the conference workshop on the two motions on antisemitism (C15 and C16, at 19:00 – 19:50 in Room L67)

Directions: it’s a short walk from SOAS. From Torrington Square turn right onto Thornhaugh St. Continue straight on along Russell Square, and straight on along Montague St. At the end turn right into Great Russell St. The second left is Museum St.

Route from SOAS to The Plough

Route from SOAS to The Plough

*There is a selection of real ales and a flight of stairs at The Plough.

Download this information as a PDF flyer.

May 17, 2008

Caroline Lucas defends the Boycott in Jewish Socialist magazine

Posted in boycott, british greens, israel tagged at 9:49 pm by raphavisses


Financial and moral support from the United States means that Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic. This does a great disservice to the many Jewish people who support the principle of universal human rights, and who oppose the current policies of the Israeli state.”

Full text of her article entitled: No green light for occupiers, here.

David Hirsh discusses Caroline’s use of the Livingstone Formulation, here.

April 18, 2008

Green candidate: no to boycott

Posted in boycott, british greens, israel tagged , at 2:52 pm by raphavisses

UPDATE 1 (April 19, 4pm): It seems that Sian and Jenny do not confirm the JC information. We are waiting for a full statement from them; it will be published as soon as…

UPDATE 2 (April 24, 10am): No public statement from Sian or Jenny; I copy below the full press release from London Jewish Forum which was issued after the meeting (the JC article was based on this press release).

From the Jewish Chronicle

Green candidate: no to boycott
17/04/2008 12:01:00

Sian Berry, the Green candidate for mayor of London, has disavowed the party’s policy of support for boycotting Israel. She and London Assembly Green member Jenny Jones told the London Jewish Forum on Tuesday they looked forward to the policy being changed, according to the forum. Adrian Cohen, LJF chairman, said it was “a first step towards links between the London Jewish community and the Green Party”.

PRESS RELEASE (issued by London Jewish Forum):

London Jewish Forum meeting with Green Party candidates

17th April 2008

Embargo: Immediate

On Tuesday evening, Adrian Cohen and other members of London Jewish Forum met with Green Mayoral candidate Sian Berry and Assembly Member Jenny Jones to discuss the London elections and to foster mutual understanding between the Green Party and London’s Jewish community.

The meeting saw a discussion of the priorities of Jewish Londoners, as well as those of the Green Party. Community safety and the threat of political extremism, cultural provision and the need for increased social housing to accommodate the growing Charedi community in Stamford Hill were all discussed. The Green candidates highlighted their commitment to increase the proportion of affordable housing in new developments to 60%.

There was a frank discussion surrounding the Green Party’s support for the boycott of Israel. Both Sian Berry and Jenny Jones confirmed that they did not support the current policy and looked forward to this being changed at their next conference.

The London Jewish Forum was invited to organise a speaker for a meeting at the next Green Conference, in London in September, to speak on the issue of Jewish community interests.

Sian Berry expressed serious concerns about the threat of BNP gains in the assembly election. LJF outlined the communal ‘Your Voice or theirs Campaign’, aimed at increasing Jewish turnout.

Adrian Cohen, Chair of London Jewish Forum, said “This was very successful meeting, with a frank discussion on a wide range of issues. It was a first step towards building links between the London Jewish community and the Green Party, and I look forward to that relationship developing further.”

Over the past months, London Jewish Forum has held meetings with the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat mayoral candidates.


April 13, 2008

Boycott-induced introversion – not environmentally friendly

Posted in boycott, british greens, israel tagged , , at 11:32 pm by Mira Vogel

As well as not working very well (especially when they’re vague and don’t have realistic aims, as in the case of our embarrassing and hate-inspiring Motion C05), boycotting a country causes that country to turn in on itself. It’s worth noting, since there’s a tendency to mis-compare Israel with South Africa, that the end of apartheid was achieved through popular uprising and the political acumen of anti-apartheid activists like Nelson Mandela, and the role of the boycott, which had the side-effect of making apartheid-supporting South Africans – the holders of power – defiantly hunker down, is contested.

Israelis understand that the intention of their boycotters is to cancel Israel – by referring to it as an ‘apartheid state’ as if Israel and Palestine were a single country, by proposing to starve it of weapons despite the avowed obliterationist intentions of powerful regional factions like Hesbollah and Hamas, or by claiming that all Palestinians have the right to live in Israel. Understandable if they feel a tiny bit alienated and insecure.

After all, Israel has been boycotted and under attack since its inception, a circumstance which, in the consciousness of many Jews, is merely a continuation of age-old attacks on, boycotts of, discrimination against, and explusion of Jews. British Greens should care more.

This Jerusalem Post article on an Israeli bill to introduce a 1NIS charge for each plastic bag used in supermarkets, makes a few points that Green Boycotters should note. One is to do with the fact that states who feel under attack relegate environmentalism down their list of priorities. Another is the impact of Israelis who have travelled and return with stories about how other countries are handling their environmental problems. I doubt if many Israelis are looking to Boycotting Britannia right now. Greens Stop the Boycott would like to change that.

Yehuda Olander, manager of the Sharon District Regional Division for the Quality of the Environment, attributes Israel’s lack of progress on environment preservation to its constant occupation with survival. “Survival here is not only talking about the environment, it’s talking about security,” he explains. “Ten to 20 years ago, when the rest of the world began caring for the environment, Israel was focused on surviving as a country.

“But it works to Israel’s advantage,” Olander continues. Through other countries’ successes and failures, Israel can learn how to be more environmentally responsible.

“[Israelis] come back from Europe and [other parts of the world] and say ‘Wow, look what they have done – how they recycle and how they avoid traveling too much in their cars.'”

April 10, 2008

Ken apologises (sort of)

Posted in british greens at 8:44 am by raphavisses

Peter Tatchell, Green Party’s parliamentary candidate for Oxford East, on CIF

Adrian Windisch, Reading Green Party, adds

The post is aimed at Ken Livingstone, who accuses Green Party Candidate for Oxford East, Peter Tachell of ‘Islamaphobia’. Its telling that his experience has been similar to others here over Israel.

He says ‘because I criticised Ken on one issue (Qaradawi), he has slurred me as an Islamophobe. It all began when Ken invited the right-wing Muslim cleric to City Hall in 2004 and saluted him as an “honoured guest”. I found his embrace of Qaradawi very odd and quite appalling, given that the sheikh is indisputably antisemitic, homophobic and sexist.’

Just as many on here have been, Peter found himself accused. ‘The mayor condemned me as anti-Muslim, and even suggested I was a pawn of the Israeli secret service and US neocons.’ Now before the Mayoral elections Ken is slightly changing his tune.

March 29, 2008

Women bring green educational institute to Arab sector. The role of a boycott is…?

Posted in boycott, british greens, cooperation, education at 12:30 pm by Mira Vogel

The Israeli daily Ha’aretz reports on a joint initiative between a group of 17 Israeli Arab women and the Israeli Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel to establish an educational institute in the Galilee region that will teach environmental conservation, recycling and ecology:

The women, aged 30 to 35, come from varied backgrounds – Druze, Moslem and Christian. They are being instructed by the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel.

“This is the first group of Arab women to learn about environmental issues,” said Muadi. Explaining that in her neighborhood, environmental awareness is still in its infancy, she added: “We therefore decided to start with activities in the schools, because change has to begin with the students.”

After completing an SPNI course on environmental education, the women joined the staff of SPNI’s field school, which runs the environmental program in the village’s elementary school. The women gave several lessons to every grade, covering environmental topics such as nature, water, recycling, air pollution and ecology. Last week, the women and students went on a field trip that included a clean-up operation.

“The women’s involvement as part of SPNI’s teaching staff,” said Vasil Hazima, director of SPNI’s field school in Maghar”

The Green Party’s boycott Resolution C05 – part of a wider boycott and divestment initiative – currently acts against these types of partnerships. It is an entirely negative force that promotes hostility and inevitably contributes to pressure on Israel’s Arab (or Palestinian – depending on how they self-define) to turn their backs on such initiatives.

This pressure is evidenced in the experience of a delegation of philanthropists who were visiting Israeli Arab villages and institutions to research how best they might contribute to the kind of inclusive, equal society which is prerequisite of any kind of conflict resolution. There was a small but loud call to boycott the delegation. Here’s what Ami Nahshon, one of its members, had to say:

While the call to boycott fell on deaf ears among the vast majority of Arab public and civil society leaders, it taught all of us an important lesson: that the lines of conflict in Israel are not between the Arab and Jewish communities, but rather between those Jews and Arabs who embrace a vision of an inclusive and just society, and those who seem intent on pursuing an agenda of separatism and alienation. Our visit convinced us that it is our duty, as diaspora leaders, to embrace and support those who share this inclusive vision, and not to allow ourselves to be distracted by the separatist voices at the political fringes of both communities.

There is also the experience of peace activist Mohamad Darawshe part of an Israeli Jewish and Arab fact-finding mission to Northern Ireland who was boycotted by a Northern Irish International Relations academic for being Israeli.

And the experience of the Palestinian and Israeli workers and promoters of the Peace Oil initiative, a charity which was subject to a Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) sabotage attempt.

“Anything that the Zionist Federation could get excited about would be bound to inflame the PSC. Pro-boycotters tend to act jealous when Palestinians cooperate with Israelis and frequently attempt to break things up. Targetting Israeli-Arab-Palestinian cooperation and making an issue out of the only product in the Good Gifts catalogue with an Israel connection is a wedge-driving tactic and part of the general boycott strategy. It’s of a piece with their hard work to stop OneVoice dual peace concerts in Tel Aviv and Jericho, and their condemnation of Israeli academics for apathy while simultaneously encouraging and pressurising Palestinian academics to have nothing to do with them.”

OneVoice is a citizens’ Israeli-Palestinian peace movement which was sabotaged by boycotters when they attempted to stage joint peace concerts in Tel Aviv and Jericho.

What contribution has the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement had on improving Palestinian lives and advancing towards a just resolution to the conflict? None. It’s logic is to polarise, not reconcile. And meanwhile Israel’s reprehensible settlement activity in Har Homa and Givat Ze’ev continues, in the face of the Annapolis agreement to freeze activity, and despite the long-overdue evacuation of 18 ‘outposts’. The security barrier’s mission creep endures, causing it to bite deep into Palestinian territory. Hamas consolidates power in Gaza, tolerating or promoting the persecution of Christians, journalists and Trade Unionists. Gazan women take up the veil to avoid negative attention. Fatah, the secular political force in the West Bank weakens as the clerical, anti-democratic parties of Hamas and Hizb ut Tahrir gain ground. Iran funds weapons for Hamas and Hesbollah.

The Green boycott is the opposite of helpful. Any green activist should understand that it has no place in a movement which purports to support ecological and environmental activism. Its logic is conflict, separatism and alienation, and we should get rid of it as soon as possible.

The Green Party should turn its back on anything that contributes to this pressure by rescinding Resolution C05. If we care about a peace beween Palestinians and Israelis, we should work on an alternative vision. And we will.

March 23, 2008

Harry’s Place post on Greens Against the Boycott

Posted in boycott, british greens at 9:45 pm by Mira Vogel

Harry’s Place is a good place to be seen. Go and follow the comments to this post.

Next page