 Hello, hello, hello, and welcome to another live streamed meeting of the in 25 the movement for Europe, featuring progressive ideas you won't hear anywhere else and this meeting is a big one. The Israeli occupation of Palestine, once again, recently exploded into violence resulting in a terrible 11 day offensive on the Gaza Strip the toll, at least 253 Palestinians including 66 children wounding more than 1,900 people on the Palestinian side on the Israeli side 12 Israelis three foreign workers and two children. With this awful and sad and seemingly endless situation what is the solution and this is something that the entity five has been grappling with for several years with have lots of internal members discussions about it we've said things about the, the Israeli Palestine situation but we have never actually formulated a concrete position on it. What you're going to see today is behind the scenes a little bit you're going to see a political movement, trying to articulate what is going to be its position on this issue. Two positions have emerged as the, the, the two solid positions that will be put to the whole of the dm membership in the coming days. They will have the dm membership that decides all our positions is going to decide between these either these two positions or for us not to take a position on for them for the moment on this issue. One of the positions one of them is from the coordinating collective of dm 25, and the other is from a collection of members of dm 25 individual members. So here's how it's going to work today. Yanis is going to present the proposal for the coordinating collective, then Robert is going to present the members proposal. Then react to the members proposal Robert will react to the CC proposal, and then we're going to open the floor. Everyone's going to have strictly two minutes each everybody on this call please use the raise hand function if you'd like to speak. And there's going to be comments perhaps between speakers that I will be reading out and we may, we may have a few surprise guests who would be will be dropping in. This is a very divisive issue everybody so please keep the conversation civil and you out there if you've got any questions concerns anything you want to say at us, please do so put it in the YouTube chat, and we will read your comments out between the speakers. So, without further ado, let's kick this off over to you Yanis. Thank you, my friend. Thank you so much. Welcome everyone comrades, as well as years. Today, we are fulfilling a more of duty. We're rising up to more duty because for years there was an anomaly in the end, we would come up with reactions to events in the Middle East and Palestine in particular, without a Monday for members. And because it's a divisive divisive issue not having a mandate was something a problem. But today, with the new time of events, we had effectively a new indicator going on in Palestine. For the first time, we've had a remarkable unity front, both in pre-1967 Israel, as well as the occupied areas of all Palestinians. There is a tidal shift, and we need to rise up to it. And this is the time. But before that, let's celebrate the fact that we have a movement that does things that no other movement does. I mean, what other movement or party do you know of? Because members hold a live streamed debate to decide just before holding a vote on such a divisive, such a controversial point. And also, the fact that we have two options that come out of the same movement, and they're both consistent with our principles, it's simply a matter of working out which one reflects the majority of our members better. So we are giving a lesson to other movements and parties on how to decide collectively. Now, allow me to say that the main questions against this process are two. What are you Europeans doing, telling the Palestinians and the Jews what to do? Well, allow me to say that we have every business, because as Edward Said once said, unless the Palestinians liberate themselves, the Americans are going to liberate themselves, the Europeans are not going to liberate themselves. On what needs to be done immediately, I think that we are all in agreement. We need immediately to end the occupation. We need immediately to campaign against the apartheid state. We need to recognize the state of Palestine, at least legally so that there is parity, legal parity between Israel and the Israeli entity and the Palestinian. We need to end the arms race. We need to have an arms embargo on the powerful side of the Israel. We need to do all that. The internationalist, humanist commitment of the 25 non-discrimination to equality before the law to diversity, to freedom of movement. These are principles that we don't just have for Europeans. In any case, in BN25, we don't believe in borders. So, you know, we have DSC, we have organizations in Tel Aviv, in the Ramallah, we have comrades who are Palestinians, comrades who are Jews. So we have every right. Indeed, we have an obligation to come up with solutions with at least a campaign with a position on what needs to happen today and what are we campaigning for? And what is the vision of the future for historic Palestine that BN25 endorses? The only difference between the two options, three options. One option, option three, which we need to have there for democratic purposes, says we're not ready to have a position on Palestine. Or we shouldn't have a position. That's one option. A second option is, well, actually option one is the one that I am speaking in paper, which embeds option two that Robert will be speaking to, but goes beyond that. It says something that option two doesn't. Regarding the future vision and to conclude with a brief assessment of what that is. I personally believe and the CC believes that the two state solution today would result in one of two awful outcomes. A non viable Palestinian state resembling the band of stans that South African apartheid was meant to be with Palestinians living in Israel as second class citizens, or a violent exchange of populations that will create pure nation states. In short, it is now impossible to imagine two viable sovereign states that are humanist and respect the principle that the N25 insists upon. To finish off, let me say that asking for the implementation of the right to return, which is key to Palestinians, is inconsistent these days with the two state solution. Thank you. Thank you, Janice over to you, Robert, for the members proposal. Thank you, Meran. Thank you, Janice. Good evening, everyone. As a member of the group of 11 signatories. I'm presenting to you the main ideas and thoughts behind our groups in the text. How is our text different from the one written by the CC. Our text is focusing on the role of Europe in Israel Palestine, disemphasizing the importance to have international law as legal guide and basic principle. Strategically it focuses on ending the occupation as first and long overdue priority, as well as it tries to get beyond the confines of a debate of one versus two states regarding a solution. Where do we see the mistakes or weaknesses in the CC text, the prominence of the advocacy for a one state solution as solution to the unacceptable situation Israel Palestine is diverting the desperately needed public attention away from European responsibility towards a one versus two state debate. Furthermore, we see the CC text speaking in the name of the people in Israel Palestine, which we find very problematic for a European movement. Our text is much about Israel Palestine, as it is in general about DMs principles when approaching conflicts outside of Europe in which Europe is highly involved. Let us in DM not be these Westerners who are so convinced of being right that they will try to involve themselves in debate somewhere else. Do we really think it is our job to convince progressives in Israel Palestine, who are envisioning other solutions that do we try to convince them that they are wrong. Actually, shouldn't we be happy about the flourishing of so many different ideas and shouldn't we instead continue the work of DM members, including Janes, including members of our group like Arturo Desimone, that are giving a big variety of voices from Israel Palestine a platform without lecturing them. Just see the reason interesting forum posts outside the one state versus two state debate on our forums, all these ideas can be criticized supported or influenced, but we think that should not be the task directly or indirectly by this all member vote about the stance of DM regarding the situation in Israel Palestine and let us not forget with such clear advocacy for a one one state solution we are for one solution particular we are running the danger of destroying many hard one little bigger little and bigger victories by the Palestinians on the international stage over the last decades. Let me explain our texts principles with different worlds instead of telling others how to clean up their house we focus on cleaning ours Europe, which we anyway know much better. Recently we have heard so many members saying that they feel like they have to read so many books before they feel comfortable with taking a stance regarding Israel Palestine we understand that. What do we actually know more about what is uniting us in DM. It is our concern with and the fight against neoliberalism and the imperial behavior of the best. It is our emphasis on solidarity and respect of sovereignty which includes the right to determine your future yourself and solidarity means to work together with other progressives and this while treating each other as equals. You might know the 70s quote from an aboriginal rights group in Greenland saying, if you have come here to help me, you're wasting your time if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine then let us work together. The phrase to come to help me includes if you want to help even with the right ideas or intentions, because this way, you still take away agency and sovereignty from the people who are suffering. Remember what Omar Baguti answered to Jan is in the recent conversation he said self determination means the Palestinian get to decide their own future it's not up to the Europeans or any anyone else it's up to Palestinians. So what can what should we do as DM 25. I refer back to the quote, we focus on where our liberation is bound up with the liberation of progressives in Israel Palestine. Please read our AMV text very careful, we point there clearly out that we focus first and foremost on the ending of the occupation and we give seven concrete steps that go from stopping arms supply fight ending and the trade with the settlements and forced resolutions that demand the end of the occupation and the withdrawal of the military. And so forth and so forth. Finally, allow me a comment on strategy. Even if you are making the argument that your one state solution advocacy is a vision for the future. Do we all really think the media will give us the chance to explain this, or when the first follow up question be why are you against Israel is right to resist. I want to make clear I'm not saying this is what the CC is saying but this is how the media works. We know how tough it is to get 60 seconds on prime time news. We appreciate Janis work the CCs work the press teams work to get our message out there. If we are lucky to get these few seconds then I don't want to see Janis being busy with fighting anti Semitism claims, rather I like to see this brilliant economics professor explained to Europeans Janis explained to the German working class, how their money pension funds in the bank accounts their tax money, how this money is used to feed the occupation to feed crimes and violations of international crimes, or in different worlds and this is the last two sentences. Think about how about your dispute with German Finance Minister Schäuble. Back then did you hope German left, did you hope for the German left wingers would tell you what's right or wrong for greed to do, or that you hope that we all would join ranks and the German left wingers would join in criticizing Schäuble. Thank you very much. Thank you Robert Janis your reaction please. Thank you may run. Well firstly Robert. If my, my comrades in the link and offered me advice, I would never say to them, who are you to give me advice on what to do. I would seek their advice I sought their advice. I did not recognize my right to say that I know best about Greece and this is why we have them. We need to go beyond that. Of course, we need to show respect and to listen to each other, but in the same way that you are voting for our policies here in Greece, and we don't follow what the Greek Communist Party or other party say that what right to Germans have to tell us what to do. This is the end. This is why we have to have an opinion on the one or two state solution that we take this a bit further. Let me tell you Robert that the first thing that the media do when they ask you a question about your principles and you know what you don't want. Okay, we don't want apartheid. We don't want the state of Israel's occupation and so on. Then the question comes. So what do you want right. If you say it's up to the Palestinians to the Jews to work it out, because we're not going to be patronizing tell them then immediately the conversation is over they're not interested in what you have to say quite right so we you see the beauty of DM is that we have never missed our words. Now, I would be very happy to simply support Palestinians and Jews progressives getting together in order to pursue a policy of change in historic Palestine. I'm asking the emers not to vote for option one for the option that I'm supporting. If they disagree with this, the simple proposition and putting to you that no two state solution can be envisaged given the facts of the ground, which is not consistent with violence, and which is consistent with the right to return. Those who say, look, the situation is hopeless. The Palestinians must give away the right to return to Israel proper in order to gain some autonomy in the Palestinian areas. My point is I respect that point, but I disagree wholeheartedly with that DM can never support any proposal by even the best comrades in the world. That means forceful evictions and the abandonment of the right to return of everyone. And the only way we can have a very powerful coalition of Israelis and Palestinians today to fight for the principles that DM 25 is interested in and embraces the only way of doing that in my view and in the view of the CC is to not not pontificate, not dictate, but say we will support you in your fight against apartheid, we will support you in your fight for the right to return. We will support the right, the right, the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine, we will support you in anything you decide, but our view is that the vision that can unite progressives across the world, as well as in Palestine, as well as in Israel is a single democratic state where equality in front of the law and equality to write over them is guaranteed to every citizen. Thanks Yanis Robert you got the same time three minutes to react and then we open the floor. I still think there are two ways of communicating with other and also giving. I would say not advice. I think we have so many tools at our disposal that we can influence European politics to stop supporting the crimes that are happening in Israel Palestine. For example, let's come to the topic of settlements. I think of the violent exchange of populations and we all know that there are many tragic examples for this in history. But we also know how, for example, the withdrawal in 2005 from Gaza happened. There was no civil war in Israel. We also know, and this should be very interesting for us as DM as as as left wing movement. What makes most of the settlers and I'm not speaking of the politically modern on the hilltops, who always go first, who are the ones who living in the East Jerusalem in the really nice neighborhoods where there is playground swimming pools, who are linked to the to the to the tram and so on. They are there because it's subsidized. Because Israel created this what we are also calling out apartheid economy apartheid we can easily also approve using international law which again is the strategy of our proposal. So we think we should actually insist on the evacuation of the settlements and our tool would be stop first for example doing trade with settlements that makes them financially beneficial. Let's get these goods out of the shelves in our countries. Let's not buy these carrots and let's not support European public transport companies that provide the tram that could allow settlers in East Jerusalem commute to their jobs in West Jerusalem. I still think this is the more honest and the more respectful approach. Thank you. Thank you, Robert. Okay, we're going to open the floor now starting with Ivana and then Arturo Ivana you go two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Yanis. Thank you, Robert for presenting both proposals. I would like to to maybe not go into so many details, but I would like to say that I'm extremely proud of DMs process and of the movement that I'm a member of that is speaking up about this sensitive issue. That was almost a political suicide. If anybody would call out Israeli regime. So, that is the first good step for us, I think, and another very important step in my personal on objective opinion is that I would like the CC's proposal to pass because the right to Palestinians for self determination is the first step. And coming from Serbia from the country, which various governments are not recognizing independence of Kosovo, I would really be willing and proud to stay behind this proposal, wishing to have something like that in my country once one day as well. Another thing that I cannot accept from the second proposal is the resettlement of the people, because, again, in a very close history and example, moving people from one area to another doesn't go without ethnic cleansing, and this is definitely something that we should be careful about. Thank you all again, and I wish us all a good debate. Thank you, Ivana, and I did mention that we may have a surprise guest or two, and it looks like Roger Waters has just joined Roger. Would you like to have the floor. I know this is an issue which is very close to your heart. Okay, we can bring you in later, Roger, if you want. Arturo, your two minutes starts now and then we'll bring in Roger later. Arturo, go. Many thanks for bringing Roger Waters and many thanks for presentation of these two deeply asymmetrical proposals, though the first one attempted in a very summarizing manner to incorporate some part of our work. I find that Robert may have emphasized too much his discomfort with the CC's proposal about talking more about what we present and propose such as sending a nuclear inspector to the occupatories, the issue of the illegality of the settlements, the issue of using the immense tools and advantages in terms of international law, in terms of international consensus that can be tipped in favor of the Palestinians if there is mobilization and organization. Now, I find that the CC's proposal for fates and for sakes, three important things at least. First of all, I have a problem with a proposal which under the header or sections called fax mentions what is impossible to imagine. Now, when it comes to nuclear issues, this is a very important issue to ask to send inspectors. We propose a process for this. The CC's proposal says immediate denuclearization of Israel, where it comes to the right of return. We believe that the right of return is a very important bargaining tool for the Palestinians. It is very important for them to keep a strong position in negotiations to hold on to that. Of course, Israel will then have to, if it does not want to accept it, will have to present some compensation, some alternative, towards a just settlement, towards the end of the occupation. Whereas the CC's proposal says immediate recognition of right of return. So the CC proposes the outcome of negotiations before negotiations have begun. Sorry, Artura, you've got 20 seconds. When it comes to the settlements, the settlers are heavily subsidized and often are not ideological or lured by the fact that more than 10% of Israeli residential investment goes into illegal settlements and are protected by the army, under the patronage of the army. If the army goes, then the settlers leave Hebron. There is no question. You cannot project European experience of Greece onto the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thank you, Artura. Sorry to push you. I did warn you that we were going to be very strict with the time limits because we've got loads of people online. Matt, your two minutes starts now. Go. Thanks, everybody. And just building off of what Artura had said in some of these other comments about the differences between our two texts. Let me offer my interpretation. The DSC's text, our first priority or main priority, is ending the occupation. Ending the occupation. That's it stated clearly in our front end. So they just revised the text. Still, in a nutshell, their main goal is a single democratic secular state. They've changed it to a long-term vision now in their most recent texts, but at the same time they've pulled forward the right of return, which was not in their previous text until just now. And that effectively has the same impact in terms of how Israel interprets this demand. Our first priority is ending the occupation. CC's is a single democratic secular state. So while there is a bit of overlap, Janus does indicate there is an overlap between both texts and the recommended policies and tactics, the differing end games means the same policies have wildly different ramifications. For example, the CC text calls for immediate cessation of all trade with Israeli settler communities in the occupied territories. Ours does the same. But if that demand comes from an entity that's calling for the dissolution of Israel versus if that demand comes from an entity that's calling for an end to the occupation, which one do you think is going to be actually taken seriously? Which one is a better chance of succeeding? Norman Ficklesene put it like this, you've got to have both the right goals and the right tactics. They've got to match up. They've got to work together. The CC's text indicates they want to keep boycotting Israel until they dissolve into a single secular state with a Jewish minority. Is that going to weaken Israel? Or harden their resolve? And if it hardens their resolve, this will ultimately work against the Palestinians, something that this is why we're here to write this text and arrive at a position where we're here concerned about the rights and condition of the Palestinians. Thank you, Matt. Sorry to rush you off. David, your two minutes, go. Sorry, I was muted. Let's the time start now. A Palestinian member of DM who could not attend tonight's meeting has asked me to read other comment to which I need not add anything as it says it all as far as I'm concerned. I was born in 1993 in our capital Jerusalem, a city I am barred from visiting simply because I'm a Palestinian residing in Ramallah. My ancestral roots are from the Afa where my grandparents were forcibly displaced from their homes in the 1948 Nakba and were never allowed to return again. Growing up in Ramallah as its perks with Mediterranean weather rolling hills and olive trees, but living in an under an apartheid colonial settler regime or what some refer to as a Palestinian state is no ordinary life. After school, I would regularly hang out with my best friend on Ramallah's lush hills overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, but it was a sea that we were barred from visiting because we are Palestinian. We would drive around our cities only to be surrounded by an annexation wall and humiliated for hours at checkpoints. We would visit Hebron only to find Israeli settlers living there illegally harassing Palestinians. To travel the world we have to cross checkpoints into Jordan because we don't have an airport and I was deprived from seeing my grandmother simply because she lived in Gaza. Palestinians have spent almost three decades negotiating for a two state deal. Ask yourself if this was your life would you continue to advocate for a two state solution? The fact is Israel's 54 year occupation of the West Bank and the expansion of illegal settlements have already created a one state reality. When advocates call for a two state solution they give a pass and cover for more of the continued Israeli apartheid practices. The two state discourse also completely overlooks the right of return of the Palestinian refugees based on UN Resolution 194 or Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. It is not only unrealistic, it is unfair, unjust and unsustainable. For decades the EU and others have spent billions of dollars financing Israel's occupation. They say that they're building a Palestinian state but in reality all they've done is finance the continuation of occupation and apartheid. This year has ignited an unprecedented leaderless Palestinian uprising that has shaken the status quo. This moment requires meaningful international solidarity. The international community needs to be bold enough and employ all the necessary mechanisms to bring an end to this injustice. For long Palestinians have been saying that a democratic inclusive single state for all is the way forward. After all historically Palestine was zoned to all of its inhabitants whether Muslims, Christians or Jews. And one second David. The Winston solution cannot be merely based on demands for equality. It should encompass a profound process of decolonization. This is why I support the coordinating collective proposal for a single democratic secular state in the land of historic Palestine for both Jews and Palestinians. Thank you David catch your breath. Alistair. Hello everybody. My real name is Alexander Novakowich I'm from Serbia and basically first thing I need to say is this. We don't need to draw any false parallels between Yugoslav or Serbian or Balkan experience between the experiences of Jewish and Palestinian people. Because for one thing for first first fact is this. They have never had joint state or nation state together. We had that we had our great anti fascist fight in the world war two. We had Union of Slovenes Croats Bosnia Xerbs and so on, and we never had illegal settlements either. So we had the experience into Yugoslavia's sharing the same soil and living in the same country without illegal settlements. That's number one. Number two, when we're talking about experiences of people living in colonial countries. Let me remind you that the fate of Palestine and Israel both of them was decided at the first place from the very beginning by who. Great international powers like UK for example, because UK controlled and occupied that country for about 30 years during the first World War one it was occupied by UK forces and Arab forces alike, but it was never given a chance for independence and for independent decisions about their future they they they were about to make it started with Balfour declarations and it went on with 1948, and it was the policy of UK as international empire it was policy that when you leave the country, you leave the big mess behind and it happened in Ireland with Northern Ireland and free Irish state in 1921 and happened in Israel and Palestine, of course, and it happened of course in India with division between India and Pakistan in 1947. Ten more seconds Alice. Okay, so basically you you is also an empire we need to press that empire. That's the point. Let's start from the YouTube chat quickly from Elijah Harrison Artura brings up a crucial point the vast majority of settlers are non ideological they are occupying space physically and politically blazed by Jewish nationalists and the ultra religious. Next up we have Hamid. Two minutes. Yes. The argument for the two state solution previously from progressives was based on actually the non viability of a one state solution. Mostly people were actually for a democratic state nobody is per state to state solution. I don't know I think what he on is said is quite possibly true that by now, even a two state solution is non viable. However, instead of taking a stand between a one or two state solution and decades long discussion that is ought to keep going anyways, since both seem to be non viable at the moment, we need to take a stand to see where pro any solution that's between the two that ends the situation. But what's most important is ending occupation, ending the bloodshed, and doing what we can do in order to keep going with this support of the two states. And thanks is not only for the settlements that is a soft position. The, it's an arbitrary distinction between the IDF and settlement forces and so, well, I don't want to criticize now both in terms of softness but just to mention the point. We don't have to have as a movement the debate between one or two state solution, we can support both in the proposal, while going with real concrete measures to save Palestinian lives. Thank you, I made a question for Yanis how would from the YouTube chat how would a single state constitutional Congress be constituted. And what principles would be essential to safeguard the rights and assuage the concerns of all constituent parties. That can answer that later. Eric, you were next in the list. Go for it. Cheers. Cheers. Thank you. So European colonialism and its awful history should not scare us off having a position on matters that occur beyond our borders not least because as a transnational political movement. It's not a concept that we're particularly keen on. That doesn't mean that we should be flippant when when developing opposition on this matter needs to be well researched needs to be well argued, and based on the kind of principles and foundations on which we would be happy to accept. Even if implemented in our in our own homeland. We should definitely do it to be in the same position as Palestine is maintaining neutrality, however, and saying, oh, we need to simply, you know, ensure that the peace process goes on and allow people to come with a solution themselves. That kind of neutrality between resolutions always helps the hegemon always helps the person who has the best amount of level of control. In this case, obviously the state of Israel, not offering a solution means not campaigning towards strengthening a position that we believe in. Instead leaves the space open for those with the resources and the means to do so again. Those with hegemonic power in this matter, we need to put our full weight as a movement behind a resolution that we truly believe in that we truly feel comfortable that is not based on the same rotten foundations on which Europe has been making decisions in the past in terms of foreign affairs whether that is imperialism, private interests, and indeed still makes decisions on the same level but on this date on the same kind of principle that we'd be happy to implement at home. And that is why I think that it's incredibly important that we don't strengthen those with hegemonic power by maintaining this kind of neutrality and standoffish stance, but put our full weight behind a resolution that we fully articulate. And that is why I think it is important for us to to support the first option, the one table by the coordinating collective, which gears our movement and steers our movement towards such a resolution. Maybe we'll give you in time some more comments from the chat from Jan Achenhausen we need to radically break with the two state solution as outlined in the CC proposal and another comment. As a DM 25 member from Scotland from Andrew Kane. I agree the single secular state is the only way forward perhaps with a holy city similar to the Vatican in some sense. Next up, Jan, your two minutes. So, I just wanted to use this time to argue with this notion that one state solution somehow eliminates the risks, which is ethnic cleansing and and kind of bloodbath. We would, we could envision if two states are established and settlement are still there. I really don't see this. To me, first of all, one state solution is easy to imagine indeed, and this is called great Israel. And for me. The problem with this is that okay we have we can have great Israel and support Palestinians to, you know, to gain equal footing. That's not how it works like I'm not an expert, but I know some, I have some experience with, you know, with the transition from communist regime to capitalist regime and, you know, it can easily turn into a class conflict. So, in addition to a conflict based on nationality and so we would have a class conflict because you know, this was, you know, all the control of state force is in arms of Israeli police army. You know, the same with capital intensity, you know, these are huge disparities. And they just, you know, condemn Palestinians to be a second class citizen anyway, until they really are able to earn this equal footing and this means having a state where they can, you know, create their own governance they can have experience with political democracy and so on. So that's this one thing. Second thing is that. Yeah, 10 seconds for your second thing. Yeah, sorry. Okay, so to me it does not preclude a lot but it's really all relies on wisdom for politicians and represent representatives on on the side we have to recognize with this reality and we cannot magically preclude those three they are always there. And I just don't see how they would be even reduced with one state solution. Thank you. Thank you. A comment from Katie here on the chat. She would like to know what the members text means by nuclear weapons free zone tons of people have their hand up next up. It is Judith. Hi there. So yesterday I read an interesting article in the New York Times by C.P. Livni who, if you may recall, as a former Israeli Vice Prime Minister and where she was the chief negotiator in the last two rounds of the Israeli Palestinian peace process. Now, I don't want to go into her role or her article even but just what struck me is that she said we're very close to a point of no return. If the Israeli government had actually annexed the land as Trump wanted them to do. We would have been beyond the point of no return and the future of two states would have been closed forever. And she still thinks that this point of no return is incredibly close. So I think that SDM 25, we need to see the sign of the times if even someone like her recognizes that the two state state solution is almost dead. And she has a strong interest in keeping it alive. I think we need to recognize these signs. And we need to stand for what we believe, obviously, a solution that does not involve an autocracy anywhere religious state anywhere pure national state that's just not DM 25 or ethnic cleansing God forbid. But I think that it's, it's, if the Palestinians and the Israelis negotiated a great two state solution next week. And they both had viable states then I don't think DM 25 would be the ones to to say no go back to the negotiating table you must do it differently. But that is not the case. And for as long as that is not the case and it's increasingly not looking like that will be the case. We have to take our own stance and our stance needs to be governed by what is actually happening and what we can see happening. Thank you Judith comment from the chat from Lawrence, Julie's on YouTube as a South African who is experienced and fought against apartheid I unequivocally support the position of the coordinating collective. Next up, Matt, McDonald two minutes ago. First, if Eric is up again, I'd like him to clarify whether when he's talking about neutrality whether he's implying that he believes that our text is remaining neutral. And if he does that, please justify that with citations from a text which says that because I would absolutely agree with the suggestion that our text is neutral. I'd like to answer quickly, Katie Hodex in the test in the, in the chat, wanting us to clarify the Middle East nuclear weapons free zone so whereas the cc's text calls for immediate denuclearization of all states and entities in the Middle East, our text calls to support the Middle East nuclear weapons free zone. The cc's word denuclearization, it's a word sure it's a concept we kind of get what you mean, but the Middle East nuclear weapons free zone is very much a thing. It was first formalized in 1974 via General Assembly resolution and the assembly has since adopted it from 1980 to the present day. Now a lot of justification for all this military aid and trade to Israel has to do with countering the Iranian threat. Yeah, I guess if you are worried about deterring a major war with Iran one twisted logic would be to keep arming both sides of the teeth, the Middle East version of the MAD doctrine mutually assured destruction. Another option which is obvious for anyone to see very simple is institute this nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. So let's move forward. Intensive inspections we know they work us intelligence concedes that they work. So what is stopping it, not Iran. Iran is actually strongly in favor of it has been for years, Arab states have been advocating strongly for 25 years, the global south is all in favor of it strongly, Europe's, there's certainly not against it so why doesn't it happen. This issue. It's straightforward the US blocks it every time it comes up in an international forum. Most recently 2015. It gets, they kill it. Everybody knows why and nobody says, the reason is you can't allow Israeli nuclear weapons to be inspected. In fact, the new United States not even recognize their existence. Although of course perfectly well seconds map. The really interesting thing here is that with American law and you law, it bans military and economic aid to countries that develop what nuclear weapons outside of the international framework, what an easy bipartisan lever upon which European popular pressure can be applied. So this is not a hollow slogan saying immediate denuclearization this is a concrete proposal that's out there that's being thrown down the memory hole by the US that European pop DM is very important and trying to change that. Sorry to cut you off, but there's loads of other people that want to speak you can come back again later. Question from the chat actually a comment, I think firstly we should support all nonviolent peace movements between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River from tarman. Next up, Juliana. Thank you. I just want to throw in one simple thought it is. I mean I get the arguments about the one state solution but one positive aspect about having a complete solution or offering a concrete solution is that people can get behind it. And I mean, that is also part of self determination. I mean we are not the only movement out here. There are many movements who support Palestine who are who are working towards a solution in in the occupation but even though it's a bold move I think you have to offer the people kind of a stance which they can get behind and that counts also for the people there. People that are precarious situation if you say, you know, you have to be self determined over your situation. It's not so easy because many people you know you don't just sit down and write a proposal for your own for your own suffering and then go go ahead and do it. It has to come. I mean, also from the inside but also from the outside and this is why I think it is completely okay for movement for a movement like DM 25 to support such a such a policy or such a campaign because then we will see where we stand on this solution and how people in Israel will react to that. I mean, nothing is written in stone and in DM we always develop policies further as Judith said, we will never stand in the way of a solution if it presents itself. But I think with so many arguments that that were brought to today, which are, which say that it's unlikely to happen, the two state solution is unlikely to happen. I think, I think this is not necessary move to go a bit further and to offer this kind of campaign so that people can actually you know, say how they feel about it. If it's not out there, then then how how are we going to, you know, to involve their voices if they don't have the choices to choose from. So I think the end is not the only movement that that people can choose from on this planet when it comes to this conflict. But I think it's okay to have a unique stance and to and to offer about proposal for solutions. Thank you, Juliana and Arturo you're next but after you Arturo for people that have not yet spoken, we will be prioritizing them because tons of people that want to speak so over to you Arturo two minutes. Thanks. So, Eric. There's also a question from Matt to Eric. First I was going to respond to Eric, I just want to mention that there is no evidence that CP legally, regardless of her partisan interests or partisan differences, Netanyahu wants to state solution our text is not explicitly about a two state solution. Your text simply suggests we do not throw the existing UN Security Council resolutions like two for two, and one that followed that into the garbage bin, because these are texts these are decisions that, and there are also documents of international law and international consensus In this case with overwhelmingly favored Palestinians and ending the occupation and recognizing on their rights and I think we must use those those instruments those and because because people in many countries do not have them but those in Europe do have them. Eric talked about flippancy in on borders and he talked about the hegemony. The EU is the hegemony the EU is a home to many hegemonic institutions like ICC International Criminal Court so our idea is that Europe the EU can if there is activist pressure if there's if there's actual mobilization actual politics. We can a political movement like the M25 pan European movement and name could play an important role in in pushing representatives to use the existing instruments to use the human rights law to use the international law. It's, it seems that because it plays that it's playing dead because nobody uses it uses it nobody pushes for it. And Eric said that implied architects might go to hegemony and help the hegemonic power and he refers to hegemony as Israel, I think that the Israel-Palestine conflict is actually the US Israel-Palestine conflict, and the EU can play an important role of dissent in getting that conflict to budge and finding an alternative program for negotiation and mediation to to to prevent the occupation from becoming 60 years old. Strategy is not neutrality and there is a matter of responsibility Europeans are in a privileged place and should not sacrifice that only for the sake of making a solidarity statement. And lastly about the borders you envision in Israeli Palestinian single country, you know, like a bit like Muammar Gaddafi's Israeli team which I thought was quite sympathetic but what about, for example, a borderless zone between 10 seconds after We don't know what the future of the region is. We cannot say what Syria will be in five years from now. Maybe one day the Lebanese, the Palestinians and the Israelis want to coexist in a borderless zone. Then do you want an Israeli Palestinian state or do you want a borderless zone like Benelux between Lebanon, Israel and Palestine. And who knows what Syria will be like. This is not a region that we can make predictions about. Despite that the cc text says in the facts section. Some things are impossible. Thank you. Okay. The same people all the time keep putting their hands up. Come on guys. People that have not spoken and especially women please raise your hands. We would like to get some new voices in this. Let us hear now from Dirk. Two minutes. Yes. Hello. I read it's the two proposals and I think the two have good views in certain points. I agree with the comments. It's not to us to say what solutions that the Palestinians need to accept. But against that I can also say the governments of the EU and the US do always speak about the two state solution. And do they ask what the Palestinians think about that? No. And I gave a comment about that in the chat. Judith Mayak says that C.P. Livny wrote a comment in the newspaper that she thinks for the points of no return for the two state solution. But many people and me also think that the points of no return for the two state solution is always passed. Israel had colonized the Palestinian territories 48 years long. As we do nothing and our governments did nothing then it's too late. My comment is also as you want the two state solution what to do with the Palestinians who live in Israel itself. The conflict is not only about the occupation of that little territory but it's also about the Palestinians who live in Israel itself. As you want the two state solution what to do with the Palestinian refugees. It is impossible to let the Palestinian refugees go back to that little territory that should be the Palestinian states. And more seconds Dirk. So that's my important, that's my point, two state solution I think that is too late. On the other side the second proposal has a few interesting things like free nuclear zone in the West. I agree with that. Maybe we can make a mix of the first states and the second one. Thank you. Thank you, Dirk. And if we have no more new speakers, I know that I did say that people could come back but it's been pointed out to me privately by several different people that it's not fair if the same people are speaking all the time. So what I propose is this, we can wrap it up, we can move over to Robert for him to summarize for three minutes, and then Yanis will summarize the CC's position for three minutes. And then we close, we will continue the debate of course on our side. Maybe we can close with Roger Waters who just put his hand up. The debate between the options is finished. Roger, are you up for that? Yeah, I'm here. I just turned my camera on because I've been listening to you a lot for an hour now and it's been fascinating I have to say. I'm not sure that I'm much clearer about the debate that you're having one with. So why did you speak at the end, just to end the event? I had no idea it was the end. I just listening and then whoever it is who's cutting people off and whatever was saying, oh well, we're coming to the end, people who haven't spoken, particularly women. So I thought, well, I'm not a woman, but I do have something to say. And so I will speak up, and it's good to see Yanis. Let me say this very quickly. What I'm hearing here when we hear and we go over and over and over it, we bat the ping-pong ball backwards and forwards across our screens of the one state Tuesday blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All the resolutions, the whole history of the thing that we all know very well of the last 70 years. And so I kept thinking, listening to it, I can't, you know, I can make sense of all of this and I do, but I'm glad I don't have to actually vote because I'm not a DM, of course you're pending member and so I won't be, but I am a grass fucking root. Okay, and that's what this is about. This is about the fact that we as a movement who believe in human rights and believe in equal human rights for all our brothers and sisters all over the world, not just in Palestine and is all over the world, irrespective of their blah blah blah race, color, creed, religion, nationality and all the rest of it. We are a growing choir. And we're not growing because the EU demands it of us because because that August body suddenly decides to make it policy that there should we should attend to individual human rights all over the world. We're growing because we are figuring it out. And we're figuring it out from the ground up. So our job whoever we are and what however this debate comes out and it's really good that you're having this debate in DM, of course, spend a but that we should that actually we have to grow the choir, and it's growing exponentially and it's growing from the ground up. The grass is growing around them until those voices in the EU who continue to mouth the same old platitudes year after year after year when nothing changes and nothing gets done, are being overtaken. The voice of the choir is getting louder and louder and our absolute responsibility is to stand on the fucking rooftops and sing at the tops of our lungs for human rights. It's a very small platform Paris 1948 human rights 30 articles that declaration. The law is always shovel to one side. I mean, I've heard lots of German voices today on this program. I was in Germany a couple of years ago doing a tour, and I was told by local politicians, including the mayor of Munich that I would never work in Germany again over his dead body. Because I was all the names that he called me and because Mrs Goldschmidt had decided that I shouldn't be allowed to perform in Germany. Well, and you know, well you guys who are German you'll know what it's like there. You know, there is an absolute wall of silence about Israel and Palestine in Germany that is unbroachable certainly by a foreigner like me, but not anymore, because the grass is growing brothers and sisters, and we are stronger. We blades of grass individual blades of grass are stronger than all of that bullshit about the Security Council and the veto, which is the worst thing that ever happened at the obviously at the beginning of the United Nations after the Second World War. The powers that be United States UK China Russia, who else France set up this little club where they could decide what would and would not become a resolution in the Security Council of the United Nations, and that has been devastating for every human being on this fragile planet. I shut up now but I was very happy to sit in Lisbon to you all for an hour and I hope you find a resolution to this question, because I have got to go and be somewhere else in a minute. Good to see you. Good to see you Roger. Thank you so much for these words of inspiration grassroots. No, not at all. We're moving and we're changing Germany as well. We are changing Germany. I can't hear it because I look forward to going back to Germany, maybe even next year if we can go over the COVID thing, and you know, and playing my filthy trade all over that great country so for the people who kind of still like truth and music. Alright, let's see under my speech. Bye. Stay well. Thank you, Roger. Let us hand it over to Robert to summarize for three minutes and then Yanis will summarize three minutes and then we'll wrap it up because we've been going for an hour and we have no new people that want to speak that haven't already spoken before. Go for it. Robert. Thank you. What, if we take a step back, what have we witnessed over the last hour. One is very good. I think we are united in our motivation to stop these crimes that these rights these violations of human rights. Everything that is happening Israeli Palestine that should not happen. What we also have done in detail is we debated one versus two state. We did not as talk about in detail, how we as Europeans are contributing to the rights violations down there. That should be our point israelis and Palestinians can speak for themselves. And we also need to keep in mind. There are different motivations for advocating to states also among Palestinians. There is there are funding. There's conditions on funding for Palestinians if they speak about different causes. This is something we should influence in Europe before we lecture them that they, they speak about the wrong idea. I also want to point out our text is neither soft nor neutral. There is a huge difference between neutrality and impartiality. We are impartial. We say based on what law we want to have accountability for the crimes that have been committed. I want to emphasize we are not a group of only two status. We have two status one status fans of confederation in our crew. We wrote a strategic text focus on the tools we see we can use immediately from Europe to stop the violations down there. And we thought if we stick to international law and the resolutions that are there no matter if we hate the veto power as Rogers as Roger rightly pointed out. Let's take the international law and get them to the ICC for the crimes of apartheid. Then let's get Germany to back up that the ICC is responsible for the crimes committed in the Occupy Territories. Instead of trying to convince progressives in Israel Palestine that we have the ideal for the right solution. Thank you. Thank you Robert for keeping the time over to you. Janice just close this. Thank you. Thank you. Well comments, Robert Arturo. Friends. This has been great. The power of DM 25 is precisely our capacity, especially through transparency through transparent means to discuss everything and out in the open controversial things things we agree on things we disagree on. We need a moment to put each other on the back and celebrate and to remind ourselves that never before has been so necessary, not just for within Europe but also without you. We are completely as one, and we need to remind ourselves of that. And indeed the two texts are identical in every respect that really matters concerning the two important things for now. Crucial task model duty we have to end the occupation to end apartheid. By means of the same tools, pushing for a ban on trade with the settlements, pushing for digital nuclear nuclear nuclearization and so on. And also, that's very important. And Robert said that very eloquently, we need to end Europe's complicity. We need to get our house in order. This is what we always need to do, because we always had from the manifesto that Europe is a source of dangers for progressives around the world as long as we haven't put our house in order so we agree on all that. Robert, you allow me to make one comment, however, critical of something you said, which reveals how important this talk about the one or two stage solution you said that the right to the tide is a Palestinian bargain employee. In other words, some kind of demand that can be watered down during negotiations. I'm afraid Robert this is a major blow to the huge movement in Palestine that is now gathering strength both in the pre 67 and the occupied territories areas. On the grounds of how inalienable and non negotiable the right to return is for them is what unites them. So I think it was a major disservice to say that, but that's my view. Comrades, the important question is this. Can we even imagine to viable sovereign states living peacefully side by side, each free of discrimination, guaranteeing equal civil rights to all their citizens and brought about without the systemic violation of human rights. No, we cannot imagine that. And I don't think progressive Europeans, progressive Americans, progressive Jews, or even Palestinians can imagine that. This is why we are saying as the CC that the truth state solution is only is not only inconsistent with DM 25 manifestos and principles, but it is also incapable of empowering the global civil rights movement that we need. We have never missed our words. We have never stopped the logical train of thought from ending up where it will. It is not a time to start missing our words now about Palestine by voting for option one. I just want to comment to you, the 25 states both loyal to the need for doing that which option to says, but at the same time. It is uniquely capable of creating a global movement in Palestine and outside Palestine in Europe and outside Europe to end apartheid in Israel and Palestine today thank you. Thank you, Yanis. Thank you to everybody who has engaged in this it's been a very passionate debates I know that some people want to want to continue it and it will continue on our forum. The membership of DM 25 will be voting on this over the next couple of days, and they will decide, is it going to be the coordinating collectors proposal, is it going to be the proposal that you've seen here from members like Robert and Alistair, or are we just not going to be in the right position on DM on Israel for the time being. Thank you so much for watching. It's been a fascinating discussion and an interesting experiment and we will be continuing the debate on our side. You can also tune in next Monday to see Yanis with Michael Albert on DMTV. Thank you out there and stay safe. Thank you so much.