Marvin Sannes has been targeted for years by agitation typical of establishment attacks on pro-Palestine organizations. The tactic targets someone as an “anti-Semite” in an attempt to drive the organization into a retrograde purity spiral, fearing its own shadow and ultimately consuming itself with infighting.
Each time Marvin was targeted, the accusations proved baseless. Sometimes he was accused of the words and opinions of others. Other times his own words were wildly misconstrued. When he could not be proved an “anti-Semite,” other mud was thrown in the hope that enough would pile up to stick.
Similar ugly attacks are now made against many party members. Entire “dossiers” are kept on the party’s public drives of “offensive” social media comments. The party has been toxified almost beyond redemption by the hateful, paranoid attitude of a few members of the officer caste toward the membership.
The accusations were brought in September by Seth Woolley, who has repeatedly taken pro-Zionist positions in discussion with party members. He has denied that the Nakba was genocidal, and that Zionism is colonialism. He has explicitly stated that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. We will show you these statements, and many of you are already aware of them.
The party members pushing this latest purge attempt have already revealed their intent to rig the process with a one-sided OpaVote ballot sent in January. And it is obscene to waste energy on this while Israel is currently committing genocide in Palestine. The party must reject this farce, and start focusing on the fight to Free Palestine.
About the January ballot: https://rb.gy/ole96t
this full article: greenlibertycaucus.org/stop-the-zionist-agitation
sources: pgp-discuss list, “What do you think?” and pgp-cc list, “Holocaust/Genocide Education,” June 2019
It is plain to an objective listener that this testimony was not a Holocaust denial. The accuser relies on innuendo and interpretation to claim that merely questioning the bill made it so. We are meant to presume no other intent could be possible. To be naive enough to judge a bill by its title or subject, without reading it. One may be troubled by hidden elements of any bill, such as section 4.2. This provision refers to an unnamed Holocaust education organization to develop standards for all genocide education. Is this appropriate? Are we allowed to wonder whether this could introduce a Zionist influence in public schools?
But we don’t need interpretation, innuendo, or presumption to read the accuser’s own verbatim words. We know that he views anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic. Denies that Zionism is colonialism. Denies that the Nakba was an act of genocide.
The rest of the accusation is similar innuendo. Reading books surely makes one a “fan” who agrees with all the author’s beliefs. Politically incorrect speech is always a declaration of hate and bigotry. Reason must be set aside, and the worst assumed.
That has already been attempted. At the accuser’s request, SCC declared over a block that the September convention had not been “formally adjourned.” The minutes of that convention show that it did adjourn, but it was not still in session in any case. No motions, no discussion. But in January, a ballot was sent with one-sided accusations and a declaration that the accused would not be allowed to defend himself. A show trial:
This vote was canceled before completion, but the intent is revealed. The accusers would cast aside any sense of fairness, and our party’s integrity of process, just to force someone out. It is disgraceful.
The accuser also implicates several current or former party officers in the diatribe. All these officers did was follow our process. Officers are required to treat party members fairly. To distract from this, the accuser defames them as “supporters” and, in the original document, preemptively escalated the demand to a mass purge. This shows the accuser’s true goal is simply to eliminate political opponents, using Mr. Sannes as a scapegoat.
All voters registered PGP are party members under Oregon law.ORS 248.002(2) Further, the law provides that a political party “by rule shall insure the widest and fairest representation of party members in the party organization and activities. Rules shall be adopted by procedures that assure the fair and open participation of all interested party members.” ORS 248.005
Participation in setting rules is precisely what we reserve for “supporting” members, so this category of membership is unlawful. However, this law is not enforced by the Secretary of State, ORS 248.011 and the party implemented the category anyway. Whether the law is enforced or not, the party should comply with it, and any noncompliance should be minimal. The main pretext for noncompliance was to guard against mass infiltration. The matter of “expelling” an individual makes a far weaker case.
The current bylaw requires showing “substantial harm to the party’s reputation or function.” The only substantial harm risked or actually done is by the rule itself. This is a tool for infighting, breakdowns of process, and general meltdown, and that is our party’s reputation. We have better things to do.
In his response, Seth Woolley rolls out his typical dissembly, trying to blur the meaning of “Zionism” and present himself as a friend of Palestinians in addition to Israelis. It appears to argue that Israel is not currently engaged in a genocidal act against them. Some friend.
To reiterate, in spite of this, there is no effort to “expel” Seth himself. That’s because most of us understand that sort of infighting does more harm than good. Let’s be grown-ups and put this to rest once and for all.