We have been told that Aaron Kiely's name was on the motion because some of the text he proposed in another, separate motion was composited in while the rest of it was rejected. In the event Kiely abstained, while most of the left-wingers on NUS NEC voted against. This doesn't entirely make sense to us - why did Kiely allow his text to become part of the motion, and why didn't he ask for his name to be removed?
In terms of the position of the student left, the important thing to note is that the left on the NEC opposed the motion because they oppose Israel's existence. The motion they supported is not noticeably more radical than the one passed - but typically, it evades the question of what a democratic settlement should look like, rather than honestly opposing two states and advocating the dismantling of Israel and the creation of a single state in the whole of historic Palestine. We want to persuade the student left to support Palestinian liberation on the basis of two states, an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel - but we also oppose such political dishonesty and evasion.