Accounts created after Oct 7th 2023 or with less than two months active
participation in the sub may not participate in this thread. These
accounts will be banned. Abuse, racism, bigotry and incitement to
violence will also result in a permanent ban. Violations of these rules
will result in the thread being locked.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If we are really being honest here, like actually being honest here - Wong knows what Hamas' response was. This is a political answer to a very loaded question.
The full exchange has real “I’m not going to dignify that question with an answer” energy, primarily because Birmo was trying to lump the aims of Hamas and the people of Gaza together.
Considering she stop funding for a charity organisation at the behest of isreal with absolutely no proof of wrongdoing. She clearly has no sense of a balanced view in this invasion.
Uh, wasn't funding cut \*after\* Australia had funded the UNRWA for that year, pending the review of its potential ties (which ultimately lasted for seven weeks before funding was reinstated), while Australia also simultaneously increased funding for UNICEF?
I’m trying to think of a metaphor which illustrates the futility of teasing out every last syllable of bullshit political minutiae word salad. It’s like participating in a giant circle jerk that drags on for an eternity and no one ends up blowing.
Until the wilful delusion stops and we acknowledge the fact that the Palestinian people have been left to foot the bill for Germany’s war crimes, the descent into hell we are witnessing will continue, and eventually we’ll all be dragged in.
> Palestinian people have been left to foot the bill for Germany’s war crimes
That is a huge oversimplification of the situation as well as very much shifting blame from the victors of the war that enforced said status quo.
Look I know it’s a fucking long shot, but is it possible that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is actually better informed on foreign affairs than us here on reddit? Is that crazy talk?
This is honestly not that great a take, I have no doubt Penny Wong is more informed then the grand grand majority but her decisions have to pair with her and her parties own political policy and ideology which may be built not on any real informed knowledge of the situation but on instead a need to pursue popular suppers, internal compromise with other ideologies in the party and avoid media backlash. This is why many political party decisions are criticisable for being completely crazy.
The blanket support for Israel months after the attack, arms deals we have in place and the pausing of UNRWA funding increases on the basis of an accusation in which no evidence was ever supplied are all examples of political action that aren’t built on being informed, in fact many a informed person including Academics who are likely even more informed then even the foreign minister balk at some of the choices Australia has made in this conflict.
Your comment doesn’t exist in a vacuum and presumably you operate like a sane person and didn’t spontaneously decide to merge words together and put them in this position with no rhyme or reason. When you said what you said it was clearly a challenge towards the above comments criticism of their policy.
The guy above is right to point out she has made bad decisions, bad decisions are not necessarily a result of her own personal knowledge, it’s stupid to point to her personal knowledge as a defence of her and the governments bad policy, therefore your point in the context of what it is responding to is wrong, or at least completely unrelated to what is being criticised.
In short her being informed and sensible doesn’t make her decisions informed and sensible as they aren’t solely her personal decisions. Therefore even if we assume informed and sensible people can’t make mistakes we can’t assume criticism of her policy is invalid because she “knows better then us”
Well we actually know that she was not - [this article outlines exactly what we knew before the funding was cut.](https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/28/australia-unrwa-funding-pause-documents-october-7-israel-gaza-war) Considering she later restored the funding after Israel was unable to provide any evidence for their claims it certainly does suggest she had no evidence at all.
It’s also worth pointing that you are speculating that she, as the Foreign Minister, had more information than us in the thread about an article where she’s claims not to know the extremely well publicised reaction of Hamas to actions her government has taken. You’d think the foreign minister would be across that too.
no - Keating has said whenever the spooks brought him Information he'd also find it in the strait times.
the information you're probably referring to is political advice.
Part of being well-informed is up to the person interpreting the information. You interpreting a 40y/o political joke as a rule for how national security works is kind of proving the point.
I didn’t appeal to authority.
I made no statement about the quality of any argument put forth by Wong. I asked whether it was *possible* that she was something other than a moron or a malicious actor. Obviously it is.
Tbh I'm not sure how I could even answer that.
I may have to unfortunately make an assumption that you are in fact instead just attempting to relate the ways in which many redditors had wild conspiracies against covid facts with our foreign affairs minister making a mistake..
If so I will say that this is a totally different subject.
And you want me to believe that in a situation like the Isreal vs Palistine, that is such a complicated situation that many great minds around the world, in a time where misinformation spreading is a major worldwide issue, where even those who report the news are even guilty of swaying opinions rather than just presenting facts, and where there has never been a greater time for both the spead and voracious of misinformation can be performed that an Australian minister can claim to know such things with such commitment is easily believable.
Now seriously.. I get it.
I've seen the members of this group align in ways that are mindboggling dumbfounding at times, and that confirmation bias is real and difficult to avoid. I also comprehend that for the lay person it isn't easy to filter the heart from the chaff these days.
I also know that simply thinking it is a straightforward, easy 'good guy/bad guy' situation that is happening in Gaza atm. So listening to this woman's rhetoric here isn't something I can side with.
It was a yes or no kind of question.
> And you want me to believe that in a situation like the Isreal vs Palistine
I don't want you to believe anything. I asked a question that people keep answering with essays on a different topic, sorry you wasted your time.
Reflecting on this I felt the need to want to dissect what is in this article. Keep in mind that I'm only presenting facts here. Not opinions:
**TLDR:**
Firstly, I'll add that the article appears to be unbiased and neutral in tone and refrains from the usual editorialising that can occur.
Both politicians' comments reflect typical political strategies, with Wong avoiding engagement with controversial sources and Birmingham probing for weaknesses in the government's stance.
The article discusses an exchange between Penny Wong, the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, and Simon Birmingham, a member of the Coalition. Birmingham questioned Wong about Hamas's response to a UN General Assembly resolution granting Palestine additional rights in UN forums. Wong responded by refusing to engage with what she termed "Hamas propaganda" and criticized Birmingham for raising it.
What I took from this article was that Wong criticized Birmingham for mentioning Hamas, stating she doesn't want to promote their propaganda, and this is a typical back-and-forth is part of regular political debates where politicians challenge each other's views and decisions.
**LONGER ANALYSIS**
The context of the UN resolution and its implications for Palestine is a verifiable fact. The UN General Assembly did pass a resolution granting Palestine additional rights, which is a matter of public record.
Wong's refusal to engage with what she calls "Hamas propaganda" reflects a standard diplomatic stance to avoid legitimizing groups deemed terrorist organizations by many countries, including Australia.
Her criticism of Birmingham for mentioning Hamas is a political maneuver to shift focus and maintain a strong stance against perceived support for terrorist narratives.
Birmingham's question aims to scrutinize Wong's stance on the UN resolution and its implications. This is a typical opposition tactic to challenge and probe the government's foreign policy positions.
By referencing Hamas's response, Birmingham seeks to create a link between the resolution and controversial groups, potentially to highlight perceived risks or shortcomings in Wong's position.
Everyone who would have legit info on the contrary on the same level as the \*sitting minister for foreign affairs\* probably isn't risking their security clearance on Reddit.
Just like she did regarding what they were discussing in this senate estimates exchange… oh wait.
Stop gobbling up Hamas and Iranian propaganda on TikTok. This isn’t completely facetious either - it’s been shown that’s where they operate. Among other platforms too, but TikTok has had the biggest outreach for them so in all likelihood your view of the conflict, and that of Penny Wong as a result, comes directly from Hamas/Iranian propagandists on TikTok.
But i will gobble the Zionist manifesto with eagerness. The same zionists who have flattened Gaza, destroyed all the hospitals (tunnels, you know?), collectively starved the people, slaughtered 40,000 souls (brownies, who cares?), and is actively supporting and enabling famine.
But tunnels. But hamas. But October 7th. Nothing to do with decades of subjugation and humiliation of Palestinians. Nothing to do with stealing of Palestinian land and property. Only the Zionist can drop 2000lb bombs on densely populated areas and our politicians (puppets?) will look the other way.
Regardless of your stance on the conflict, shouldn't our Minister for Foreign Affairs be up to date on what both sides are releasing as media statements if she is going to weigh in?
Senator Birmingham was obviously trying to trap Minister Wong in a "gotcha" moment. She knew that, and declined to take the bait. Good for her. She's got more important things to do than play political games with the Opposition.
Frankly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has better things to do than be on top of every single statement about a conflict on the other side of the globe that involves a country that doesn't really have all that much significance to Australia in the scheme of things.
I'd much rather that they be abreast of affairs more local to our region and with nations with which we have more immediate concerns. There are plenty of issues in our immediate region which require DFAT's attention. The landslide in PNG. The recent Solomon Islands election. The crisis in New Caledonia. Many other things that simply don't attract the attention of our media, but are of more immediate concern to the nation.
Or both as per ya job. My job holds many facets all of which I know and remember. If your job is to be a public employee and know this shit, Then know this shit or fuck off
If your job doesn't require you to ever prioritise what you pay attention too even to the point of disregarding or delegating certain issues that may fall under your role but are of little value well lucky you for having such a simple vocation. Some of us have roles that do require making choices between what's important and what's just noise.
Your job's probably easy as fuck then. Flipping the patties on time and making sure the nuggets are boxed up is a little different to managing foreign affairs for a nation.
It's pointless political point scoring, as is obvious in the video. If the Department doesn't brief the Minister, it's idiotic to expect the Minister to know. The department will brief the Minister about things that are important to Australia and are time sensitive. What Hamas says or doesn't say about a UN resolution is neither of these things.
Birmingham knows because he's not running DFAT and has nothing else better to do with his time. You might want Wong to engage in pointless political games, but I'd rather have her do her job and run DFAT properly. Something it's evident that the Coalition did poorly during their time in power as Labor's first job in that area was damage control for their first year. Repairing the relationships that the Coalition damaged.
When Australia votes in the UN, should they vote as the country sees appropriate or should they try to figure out how one of the two terrorist organisations are going to feel about the votes. If the country agrees with how we are voting who gives a crap what Hamas thinks?
This was a typical political gotcha attempt and Penny Wong said, sorry I don't want to play your reindeer games.
Because they are the co-belligerents in one of the most important and controversial global conflicts, about which a motion was passed at the UN. Genuinely weird defense from Wong, classic failed Labor triangulation and attempt to out-patriot the Liberals.
You understand this is subjective right? Israel would be considered by some as conducting state terrorism.
That's not a good enough excuse, it's putting your head in the sand due to politics.
And an Australian politician doesn't change what subjectivity is as well.
It doesn't change to being an objective fact just because that's the option that is more convenient.
One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that.
I don’t really care what other people think about Hamas. They have values that simply don’t align with Australia’s strategic policy, values and goals. For example the destruction of all Jews is part of their official charter. We CANNOT recognise or support an organisation that believes this.
I’m not going to get into who is right and wrong. Both Hamas and Israel are justified in their own eyes. That’s why they are savagely fighting each other in Gaza.The Australian government needs to take a position that benefits Australia the most. Despite what you think, we are not taking sides at all, we are calling for a 2 state solution and ceasefire. We are not a moral beacon for the world to look at and admire, we simply act in our own interests, and that’s ok. For example we tolerate the Indonesian treatment of west puapans because it’s more important that we have a good relationship with Indonesia than the tribes of PNG. Geopolitics is a cold, calculated game.
It kind of is, given countless other nations (as well as the UN) haven't designated Hamas as such. There's absolutely no consistency in its application according to any established or agreed-upon criteria.
Edit: I don’t mind the downvotes, but I’m genuinely curious to know where people disagree. The designation isn’t universal, so it’s already arbitrary, and from an Australian perspective we very obviously don’t hold all parties, governments, and states to the same standard i.e. there’s no consistency in the application of the designation.
> from an Australian perspective we very obviously don’t hold all parties, governments, and states to the same standard
Yep, interesting that people have downvoted you without any responses
I will respond to this.
The UN has 48 muslim majority countries and 1 Jewish one, so Israel will lose on a 1 country, 1 vote basis.
There are many terrorist organisations that are recognised by the UN, most of which relate to Islamic fundamentalism, but surprise, not any that surround or attack Israel. It seems the only ones that make the list are terrorist organisations threatening muslim countries or communities.
So Hamas is not on the list and nor is Hezbollah. The Arab League recognises Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, but would never bring it up at the UN, because Israel.
Then you have the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) of former colonial states in Africa, most of South America and Asia who support not getting involved in domestic affairs of other states, and if they do, to do it from a position of working with both sides. China and Russia are not members of the NAM but certainly prescribe to these principles as observers. They may support the Palestinian cause of self-determination, but that doesn't mean they support Hamas. They generally do support Israel's existence and a compromise 2 state solution.
The Western world, which includes Australia, recognises Hamas as a terrorist organisation due to its antisemitic charter focused on killing Jews, and the ongoing terrorist attacks against Israel, an ally, including large-scale bombings against Israeli civilian targets. Just because they decided to pretend to present a cleaner image in 2017 doesn't mean their actions or behaviour have changed.
So no, what you are seeing as subjective is a misinterpretation of the Non Aligned Movement and the self interests of muslim majority states.
It seems you really went out of your way to support my argument. The designation is essentially motivated by political and strategic whims, rather than by principles or defined criteria. The only difference is the merit (and vague, skewed notion of morality) you assign to respective parties and their reasoning.
And Australia does not recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation based on what was in a charter no longer in use (and effectively hasn’t been since before they were elected to power). And if large scale bombings against civilian targets are a reason (they are), well, again, thank you for offering further evidence in support of my argument.
I gave reasons why all other Islamic terrorist groups are recognised and the politics behind why other countries do not recognise hamas as such, which is politics indeed. Anti Israel politics.
So no. But keep supporting your “freedom fighters.” They love your contribution to your future under sharia law.
>I gave reasons why all other Islamic terrorist groups are recognised and the politics behind why other countries do not recognise hamas as such, which is politics indeed.
Effectively demonstrating my point. Thank you.
193 UN member states and only 7 + EU (27 countries) consider Hamas a terrorist org. So yes, it’s subjective.
So most of the world thinks it’s wrong to summarily execute political members of Hamas (i.e. non-combatants like civil servants), but Israel and its allies think it’s fine.
Is it so painful for us to admit that Israel is a satellite state for America to continue their geopolitical intentions in ME? The logic in all this shit is so obviously flawed, so why lie?
I mean honestly yes. It's geopolitics, they never say the quiet part loud. No one wants to be the one to call the entirety of Australia on the world stage as a puppet of America either. The reality is America has their hands so far up our pollys arses' that America can operate their jaws.
This really isn’t the case, we could easily tell the yanks to piss off if we wanted to. The Phillipines kicked the Americans out in the 90s with virtually no issues. We continue to work with the US because it’s in our interest to do so, and it has been this way for a very long time. That’s an incredibly successful partnership. The alternative is to keep switching alliances every couple of years to keep it fresh, or go isolationist mode, that that means a huge expansion of our defences forces at the cost of other public funding.
It isn't really, supporting Israel is, if anything, contrary to American strategic interests in the middle east, and Israel is ultimately a strategic liability much more than an asset, the Israel lobby is just very good at their job
Don't understand what you're talking about. America will never trust SA no matter how much they share interests, comparatively Israel is a Western state in the ME, and is completely dependant on the US protection. The US is able to use Israel as a satellite whenever they wish to project power in the ME, and also serves as a way to further deny more Russia/China land grabs.
The US actually usually doesn't use Israel to project power into the middle east because Israel is very concerned with limiting tension with its neighbours.
If the US projects power into the middle east it's usually from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or aircraft carriers, only very rarely does the US actually use Israel.
Yes, they would. When the US invaded Iraq they wanted to use Israeli bases to attack Saddam Hussein's forces and the Israelis said no, we don't want to be involved.
I haven't been able to find where I read it, so I can't provide the source, it was some article from a while ago.
My only evidence I could provide is what's on [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Role_of_Israel), which is:
> Israeli officials warned the Bush administration against invading Iraq, saying that it would destabilize the region and empower the much more dangerous regime in Iran
and
>At Washington's behest, Israel did not provide vocal support for the war, as the US government was concerned that Israeli support for or participation in the war would potentially alienate the Arab world
The Israeli's weren't against the war, but they didn't really view it as important, and thought it would likely destablise the region, and had no interest in supporting it.
The US thought that it was good Israel wasn't interesting, because if they did get help from the Israelis it would likely alienate the arabs they were trying to win over.
So not only did Israel not want to be involved, the US didn't want Israel involved because they thought they would be a liability.
>Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilising to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.
https://www.ipsnews.net/2007/08/politics-israel-warned-us-not-to-invade-iraq-after-9-11/
>Publicly, Sharon played the silent ally; he neither criticized nor supported the Iraq adventure. One reason for his relative silence was Washington’s explicit request that Israel refrain from openly backing its invasion of an Arab country or in any way intervening, lest its blessing damn the United States in Arab eyes.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090525071637/http://www.forward.com/articles/9839/
No, she only reads and actions Zionist propaganda.
Her decision to cut UNRWA funding was baffling, shameful and disgusting. It's been swept under the rug so quickly by the politicians and media. Our government actually directly contributed to the famine and genocide based on bad Zionist propaganda.
UNRWA is funded yearly, and had already been funded when funding was paused for 7 weeks to evaluate Israeli claims before being restarted. No, we didn't directly contribute to the famine.
Besides, you can send all the aid you want, but if Israel simply destroys it while the US backs them up it really doesn't matter what anyone else does.
Hamas and Israel are both fundamentally opposing 2 state solutions. She's not interested in the Hamas and Iranian propaganda yet she's enforcing the Isreali propaganda on us and trying to silence us.
Temporarily. The updated charter in 2017 removed references to killing all the Jews and destroying Israel, and replaced it with an acceptance of 2 states but without recognising Israel, and the end goal of only a Palestinian state from the river to the sea.
So no, not really
“Temporarily” is interesting (and I say this as an advocate for a single state).
Putting aside the refusal to recognise Israel (since recognition of statehood by others is relatively meaningless), I wonder what carries more weight in terms of longevity; the public statements and subsequent section of the charter, or the stated want for a Palestine from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. All of which still places it some distance ahead of Israel, in both rhetoric and action, in seeking to move forward.
Firstly, it's lipstick on a pig. Hamas creating a "friendly" charter in 2017 doesn't change the underlying constitution of the organisation, which still involves an Islamic caliphate and is based on the anti-semitic protocols of the elders of Zion. They continued to and continue to send their children to military training camps, and provide textbooks calling for the killing of Jews. UNRWA runs the schools, Hamas provides the textbooks.
There is no longevity for the Palestinian people in a civil war brought on by a propagandist jihadist organisation that wants to martyr them rather than compromise.
One would argue that Israel taking all of its settlers out of Gaza in 2005/6 was seeking to move forward, in line with the Oslo accords, met by the election of Hamas and the Palestinians choosing the path they wanted.
You're missing the part of this that this is an existential threat to Israel, not a joy ride. In an us and them situation, there will be blood.
Meanwhile, Israel's young men and women are forcibly enlisted in military service (and yes, they too have non-compulsory military-themed summer camps). Which is interesting, since none of the Palestinians I know were ever enrolled in military training camps, yet every Israeli I've met served in the IDF.
And what do you know of the Palestinian education system? Like actually know? Because if you're concerned about violent propaganda being taught in schools, boy do I have news for you.
There is no longevity for the Palestinian people under violent occupation. Speaking of which, withdrawing settlers from Gaza while maintain said occupation (and expanding settlements across the West Bank) hardly seems a way forward.
Speaking of existential threats to Israel as Palestinians are murdered by the thousands certainly speaks volumes.
Israel has conscription yes, so would I if the countries around me were trying to kill me since the UN voted to create the country. You're acting like they have a choice. Again, this is existential due to the ongoing inability for Palestinians to compromise.
What do you know of the Palestinian education system? I know enough that the US, European and Australian government investigations in 2018-2021 around textbooks identified that the Hamas supplied textbooks were teaching children about being martyrs by killing Jews and going to heaven. Funding was paused and UNRWA released a pathetic statement that they run the schools but don't supply the textbooks. When you refer to violent propaganda being taught, are you referring to the education you are getting at Melbourne Uni?
The Palestinian people are not a unified people. Their own leaders have been in a pseudo civil war for 20 years. The West Bank and Gaza are not the same thing. And while Israel, and in particular mostly American Israeli settlers in the West Bank are not acting appropriately, show me any 'occupation' in Gaza. Anything that exists stems from Hamas actions against Israel. The border wall and the blockade of items were all put in place post Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel.
Palestinians are involved in a war that they started and unfortunately civilians are being killed. I'm not sure why you expect Israel to roll over and leave their hostages or bodies of their dead. Hamas took Israelis - give them back or stfu.
There is no accountability for the billions of aid the Palestinians have received, nothing to show but hatred and tunnels (and leaders sending their people to die while sitting in Qatar). They have no interest in uplifting their people.
• Ismail Haniyeh in 2020: He explained that Hamas rejects ceasefire agreements by which, “Gaza would become Singapore,” preferring to remain at war with Israel until a Palestinian state is established from the river to the sea. “We cannot, in exchange for money or projects, give up Palestine and our weapons. We will not give up the resistance... We will not recognize Israel, Palestine must stretch from the \[Jordan\] River to the \[Mediterranean\] Sea.”
• Hamas member, Ghazi Hamas on October 24, 2023: “Israel is a country that has no place on our land \[…\] because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation.” (October 24, 2023, LBC TV (Lebanon)). He also vowed to repeat the October 7 attacks “time and again until Israel is annihilated,” and expressing a desire to “sacrifice martyrs” (referring to Gazan civilians) for Hamas’ ideological aim of destroying Israel.
Since the UN voted to create a country as part of a process in which Palestinians had no say; a country on land where a native people already lived; a country predicated on the expulsion of the native population. No people would accept that. Placing the burden on Palestinians to accept compromise when Israel is the occupying (nuclear) state with a military force and the West's backing, again, speaks volumes. Every compromise the Palestinians have been asked or forced to take is akin to a worsening of the status quo and an acceptance of their ongoing oppression.
You're also conflating investigations, misinterpreting findings, and holding Israel to a different standard by failing to apply any scrutiny to the parties carrying out the investigations, and neglecting (seemingly entirely) what's taught in schools across Israel. I encourage you to read Palestine in Israeli School Books by Israeli academic Nurit Peled-Elhanan. FYI: I'm not a student at Melbourne University, nor have I ever been. I am currently not a student at all. If you must know, I graduated many years ago in Perth with a history major (part of which required the study of Islam and world politics). I've other degrees from elsewhere too, if it's important for you to know where I was educated? In any case, I've been doing this longer than you know.
You're correct, the Palestinians are not a unified people (as if Israelis are). Israel has worked very hard to ensure that's not the case, and is indeed one of the reasons Hamas exists in its current form. Hamas and Fatah have attempted to form a coalition government (rejected by Israel and the United States). This was driven by the Prisoners' Document in 2006, where leaders of Fatah, Hamas, the PFLP, and Islamic Jihad, issued a document which sought to bring relevant parties together to work to develop a program founded (in no small part) on the basis of a two state solution. The Prisoners' Document was so named because those leaders - as has always been the case - were held in Israeli prisons.
The occupation of Gaza didn't end when Israel withdrew its forces, evacuated settlers, and dismantled settlements. They maintained control over the territory (via land, water, air, electromagnetic waves, and population registry). Israel tightened its grip following the legitimate election (according to international observers) of Hamas, but they never relinquished their hold at any stage prior. Palestinians did not start this war. There was no peace for Palestinians in Gaza (or the West Bank, for what it's worth), prior to October 2023. And you needn't say 'unfortunately' - your disregard for Palestinian lives is writ large, just as your concern for hostages is (unless, it seems, they're Israeli).
There are so many propagandist lies in what you've written that I'm going to number my responses and then you can choose to either stop responding with your bullshit or to address your lies and take accountability for spreading false information:
1. The UN voted and colonial powers split most of the world into countries. Why are the Palestinians different?
2. There is no eviodence of Palestinians being native. There is no record of Palestine ever being a country or Palestininan people. There is evidence of referring to the whole region as Palestine, which is like saying "John comes from the Middle East". There is however 3000 years or uninterrupted and archeologically proven evidence of Jews in the region.
3. Hundreds of millions of people accepted UN votes and colonial splits. Do I really need to start talking about Cyprus or India/Pakistan/Bangladesh or the 100+ other countries created in this way. Do you even want to talk about the aboriginal people of Naarm who were pushed out and had to accept it. Why are the Palestinans different?
4. Generally when a people are defeated they compromise. Like if the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or if the indigienous people of Australia did not surrender, they would have all been wiped out.
5. There is nothing wrong with the West's backing. The west is the most liberal and most prosperous multi-national group of people in history. Why do you hate the West?
6. The Palestinans have not accepted compromise. The arabs went to war in 1947, in 1967. And each time ended up worse for them. And let's not pretend Israel even ran the West Bank and Gaza before 1967, they did not. They refuse to accept Israel being there, that is their choice and these are the conseuqences.
7. I have read Nurit Peled-Elhanan. She is clearly an anti-zionist. There is nothing in her book that references not recognising a two state solution. Israel does not pretend to recognise Gaza as Israel. Israeli education reinforces the need for security to maintain an Israeli state. The Palestinans are different, they enforce the need for martyrdom and refuse to create their state. These are not the same thing.
8. In 2006 Hamas went to war in Gaza killing all resistance to themselves including Fatah in Gaza.
9. The Prisoner's document you are referring to was not initially signed by Hamas. They only agreed to sign it after it removed recognition of Israel, aka not a 2 state solution. Hamas also swore to continue to attack Jews which led Israel to denounce the document, calling it a ″stepping away from peace". Which it was, because if Israel doesn't exist therre is no peace.
10. The document was signed 3 days after Hamas crossed over into Israel and captured Gilad Shalit, again showing why they can't be trusted.
11. Sheik Abdel Khaliq al-Natsheh, the Hamas representative was in an Israeli prison for being convicted of 5 counts of murder. These are not innocent people.
12. Israel, as a sovereign nation, built a wall to protect itself against ongoing terrorist attacks, as well as destorying tunnels used for that same purpose. There is nothing wrong with that. The Palestinans have no need to go to Israel and certainly not without permission, it is a border.
13. The wall was built intially in 1994, not when Hamas won the election. It was increased in 2006 because the buffer zone was removed and so Palestinans could now access the fence. Again, to protect against terrorist attacks.
14. The wall was so successful that between 1994 until 2004, only one terrorist attack took place in Israel from a terrorist in Gaza.
15. Because the wall was successful, the 'peaceful' Hamas changed tactics and started firing rockets at Israel instead. So Israel had to invest in the iron dome
16. Because the wall was successful, the 'peaceful' Hamas stated building tunnels to Israel and were successful on a few occassions. So Israel had to build an anti tunnel barrier
17. I can't imagine why Israel is strict on what goes through the border to Gaza. I also can't believe that you don't talk about Egypt in all of this - who ran the strip to 1967 but refused to take it back, and equally have a border crossing which they control in a similar manner due to the ongoing terrorist attacks they had before they did it.
18. All of this money could have been spent on building their own state infrastructure and uplifting their people, instead Hamas has ruined that chance that Israel gave them in 2005/6.
1. Yes. That's not quite the win you seem to think; however, the treatment (expulsion) of the native population at the expense of a non-native population is, while not unique, is deserving of consideration by comparison.
2. Yes there is. That's a blatant lie. And there is no record of Palestine being a country because nation states are a relatively modern, western invention. But, as you note, Palestine is (and was) the region; and the Palestinians, of which Jews were included, were a people who have historically been referred to as such. Nobody claims there were no Jewish people indigenous to the area, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring that up.
3. They just accepted the splits, did they? One would think there was more to it, what with the genocides, ethnic cleansing, and ongoing wars. That you think pointing to Indigenous Australians - who I am more than willing to talk about (because why wouldn't I be?) - lends your argument credibility speaks volumes for how little you understand what's being argued. And again, no people should be expected to accept what was agreed behind their (Palestinian's) back, not least of all given the direct and immediate cost to them (and what was promised).
4. They have. Also, that's a pretty gross argument, particularly where it concerns weaponising the treatment of Indigenous Australians. Shame on you.
5. If you're unaware of how the West has built and maintained its hegemony, and why that might lead some to be critical of both their influence and conduct, you may need to revisit high school level history. Even now, supposed leaders of the West, namely the United States, are turning their back on the very institutions they helped to establish, or at least use at their choosing, in pursuit of violence and the maintenance of their (admittedly waning) dominance.
6. See 4. They have. There are records of them having done so.
7. Is the Israeli professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem an anti-Zionist? Big claim (one I'm sure supported by evidence). Why are you discussing 'not recognising a two-state solution' as if that's all you took from the book? Why the double standards as you grant Israel carte blanche to conduct itself however it so chooses i.e. if Israelis do something, it's to protect itself; if Palestinians do so, it's an act of aggression? And since you read the book, what else does it find about Israeli education? Go on...
8. What was the broader context to those killings? And no, that's not a comment on the legality (or morality) of Hamas' actions. So again, go on...
9. Hamas, alongside others, signed (the National Conciliation Document) once they came to an agreement on conditions. That tends to be how it works. And not explicitly recognising Israel as a state is not akin to refusing a two-state solution (as was outlined in the document).
10. What did Israel do during, before, and after this period, and indeed during, before and after negotiations between parties? How many Palestinians did they detain without charge or due process?
11. Given Israel's conviction rate of Palestinians, and the crimes for which he was charged (even after 2017, he was being held in administrative attention), I'd at least apply some measure of scrutiny to what took place, which I know you're reluctant to do. And given those charges emerged as a result of clashes in which Palestinians were killed, I'm curious if again you hold Israelis to the same standard...
12. Again, this paints Israel as a victim of others' making and ignores both the reality of the wall as a tool of oppression, and the conditions leading to the violence Israel claims necessitates the wall. Here, I refer to point 7 re: if Israelis do something, it's to protect itself; if Palestinians do so, it's an act of aggression
13. See above. Also, what preceded the wall?
14. Walls tend to do that. Now take a step back and consider what tends to lead to those attacks (don't bother, I know how that goes but that answer involves an occupation).
15. See above and part of point 10.
16. See points 12-15.
17. We're not talking about Egypt, but if you want me to condemn Egypt, a nation that's rarely ever been a friend to Palestinians, than I am more than willing to do so. But equating Egypt's treatment of Palestinians to Israel's in any serious capacity is simply dishonest.
18. Israel never gave them a chance. It deliberately deprived them of the infrastructure and resources needed while maintaining its occupation.
You are using a compulsory period of national service as a rhetorical weapon against Israel? Really?
South Korea also has mandatory military service. Are you hammering them for being worried about North Korea? Let's leave aside Switzerland, because they haven't had a neighbour invade them and attempt to completely annex their country in the last century. Those are the two examples of mandatory military service that I'm familiar with without doing any research at all. There are probably others, including many of the combatants in WWI and WWII.
It's worth pointing out that not every Israeli serves either. There are exemptions available based on ethnic background and religious belief. It's actually a growing political issue in Israel that the growing (as a result of much higher relative birth rates) ultra-orthodox Jewish population doesn't serve yet typically votes in a way that results in a greater risk of conflict, when soldiers are more needed. So when you say "every Israeli you've ever met served in the IDF," you're actually saying that you've never had any contact with an Arab, Druze or ultra-orthodox Israeli person, despite those groups collectively making up somewhere north of 20% of Israel's population. Perhaps your encounters with Israelis have been self-selecting in some way, because assuming you've met at least 5, your sample is not representative.
The rest of what you've said is valid (though as a lawyer I'd probably quibble with the use of the word "murder" because it's a legal term with a specific meaning and I'm thoroughly sick of words being deliberately misapplied to attempt to lend force to arguments). I just thought I'd add context to your conscription argument, because I think it's necessary to understand it before passing judgement.
Yes, I am absolutely using a compulsory period of national service as a rhetorical weapon against Israel, particularly in light of the very specific criticism being aimed at Palestinians. And my views on compulsory national service is consistent.
I'm aware not every Israeli serves and that it is a growing political issue, particularly in light of recent high-profile objectors. When I say every Israeli I've ever met served in the IDF, I mean precisely that. Two things remain true: (1) the majority of Israelis are drafted to the IDF, and (2) Israelis encountered abroad, such as in Australia, are almost certainly more likely to come the Jewish population required to serve (i.e. the sample is unlikely to accurately reflect Israel's demographic makeup).
As for my use of the word 'murder', I did so purposefully and fairly. Since this isn't a legal debate - and since I'm content to accuse Israel of intentional, unlawful killing based on its record of having done so (also note the charges outlined in the applications for arrest warrants) - I have no qualms using the term.
> As for my use of the word 'murder', I did so purposefully and fairly. Since this isn't a legal debate - and since I'm content to accuse Israel of intentional, unlawful killing based on its record of having done so (also note the charges outlined in the applications for arrest warrants) - I have no qualms using the term.
You can do whatever you want. Just know that there's a difference between unlawful killing and murder, so you're misusing it. If there wasn't a difference, the crime of manslaughter would not exist. Feel free to use homicide if you want. Although in the context of Gaza you could use femicide or infanticide, which are both pretty strong words that actually apply. "Mass infanticide" is going to work for your purposes, perhaps even better than "murder", and won't annoy people who care what words mean.
I just prefer honest argument, where people use the right words in the right context. We're seeing an increasing disregard for that in a post-truth society, where the only goal is to confuse people with visceral reactions to trigger words, rather than persuade them with logic.
Again, you seem to be under the misapprehension we're engaged in legal discourse. Even so, I wrote '**intentional**, unlawful killing', and pointed to the charge outlined in the application for arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant (specifically 'wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i)' and 'extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity').
I very much care what words mean and only ever seek to use them deliberately and with purpose. And so I can only repeat: I have no qualms using the term.
Accounts created after Oct 7th 2023 or with less than two months active participation in the sub may not participate in this thread. These accounts will be banned. Abuse, racism, bigotry and incitement to violence will also result in a permanent ban. Violations of these rules will result in the thread being locked. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If we are really being honest here, like actually being honest here - Wong knows what Hamas' response was. This is a political answer to a very loaded question.
i mean its basically her job to know right?
The full exchange has real “I’m not going to dignify that question with an answer” energy, primarily because Birmo was trying to lump the aims of Hamas and the people of Gaza together.
[удалено]
Considering she stop funding for a charity organisation at the behest of isreal with absolutely no proof of wrongdoing. She clearly has no sense of a balanced view in this invasion.
Uh, wasn't funding cut \*after\* Australia had funded the UNRWA for that year, pending the review of its potential ties (which ultimately lasted for seven weeks before funding was reinstated), while Australia also simultaneously increased funding for UNICEF?
No, but I don’t tend to read anything other than Hamas propaganda.
I’m trying to think of a metaphor which illustrates the futility of teasing out every last syllable of bullshit political minutiae word salad. It’s like participating in a giant circle jerk that drags on for an eternity and no one ends up blowing. Until the wilful delusion stops and we acknowledge the fact that the Palestinian people have been left to foot the bill for Germany’s war crimes, the descent into hell we are witnessing will continue, and eventually we’ll all be dragged in.
> Palestinian people have been left to foot the bill for Germany’s war crimes That is a huge oversimplification of the situation as well as very much shifting blame from the victors of the war that enforced said status quo.
Look I know it’s a fucking long shot, but is it possible that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is actually better informed on foreign affairs than us here on reddit? Is that crazy talk?
This is honestly not that great a take, I have no doubt Penny Wong is more informed then the grand grand majority but her decisions have to pair with her and her parties own political policy and ideology which may be built not on any real informed knowledge of the situation but on instead a need to pursue popular suppers, internal compromise with other ideologies in the party and avoid media backlash. This is why many political party decisions are criticisable for being completely crazy. The blanket support for Israel months after the attack, arms deals we have in place and the pausing of UNRWA funding increases on the basis of an accusation in which no evidence was ever supplied are all examples of political action that aren’t built on being informed, in fact many a informed person including Academics who are likely even more informed then even the foreign minister balk at some of the choices Australia has made in this conflict.
> I have no doubt Penny Wong is more informed then the grand grand majority ...so your answer is "yes"?
Your comment doesn’t exist in a vacuum and presumably you operate like a sane person and didn’t spontaneously decide to merge words together and put them in this position with no rhyme or reason. When you said what you said it was clearly a challenge towards the above comments criticism of their policy. The guy above is right to point out she has made bad decisions, bad decisions are not necessarily a result of her own personal knowledge, it’s stupid to point to her personal knowledge as a defence of her and the governments bad policy, therefore your point in the context of what it is responding to is wrong, or at least completely unrelated to what is being criticised. In short her being informed and sensible doesn’t make her decisions informed and sensible as they aren’t solely her personal decisions. Therefore even if we assume informed and sensible people can’t make mistakes we can’t assume criticism of her policy is invalid because she “knows better then us”
Don't know who you're arguing with but it's not me.
Well we actually know that she was not - [this article outlines exactly what we knew before the funding was cut.](https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/28/australia-unrwa-funding-pause-documents-october-7-israel-gaza-war) Considering she later restored the funding after Israel was unable to provide any evidence for their claims it certainly does suggest she had no evidence at all. It’s also worth pointing that you are speculating that she, as the Foreign Minister, had more information than us in the thread about an article where she’s claims not to know the extremely well publicised reaction of Hamas to actions her government has taken. You’d think the foreign minister would be across that too.
no - Keating has said whenever the spooks brought him Information he'd also find it in the strait times. the information you're probably referring to is political advice.
Part of being well-informed is up to the person interpreting the information. You interpreting a 40y/o political joke as a rule for how national security works is kind of proving the point.
[удалено]
I didn’t appeal to authority. I made no statement about the quality of any argument put forth by Wong. I asked whether it was *possible* that she was something other than a moron or a malicious actor. Obviously it is.
The 'us' you refer to might have amounts of legit info on the contrary to her. bundling everyone like you tried to de here is kinda wrong tbh.
Like how we had amounts of legit info on the contrary to what the Minister for Health had about COVID?
Can you explain what you mean by that please
Did most reddit users have "amounts of legit info on the contrary to" what the Minister for Health had about COVID?
Tbh I'm not sure how I could even answer that. I may have to unfortunately make an assumption that you are in fact instead just attempting to relate the ways in which many redditors had wild conspiracies against covid facts with our foreign affairs minister making a mistake.. If so I will say that this is a totally different subject. And you want me to believe that in a situation like the Isreal vs Palistine, that is such a complicated situation that many great minds around the world, in a time where misinformation spreading is a major worldwide issue, where even those who report the news are even guilty of swaying opinions rather than just presenting facts, and where there has never been a greater time for both the spead and voracious of misinformation can be performed that an Australian minister can claim to know such things with such commitment is easily believable. Now seriously.. I get it. I've seen the members of this group align in ways that are mindboggling dumbfounding at times, and that confirmation bias is real and difficult to avoid. I also comprehend that for the lay person it isn't easy to filter the heart from the chaff these days. I also know that simply thinking it is a straightforward, easy 'good guy/bad guy' situation that is happening in Gaza atm. So listening to this woman's rhetoric here isn't something I can side with.
It was a yes or no kind of question. > And you want me to believe that in a situation like the Isreal vs Palistine I don't want you to believe anything. I asked a question that people keep answering with essays on a different topic, sorry you wasted your time.
Huh. You feel I wasted my time. Fascinating
Reflecting on this I felt the need to want to dissect what is in this article. Keep in mind that I'm only presenting facts here. Not opinions: **TLDR:** Firstly, I'll add that the article appears to be unbiased and neutral in tone and refrains from the usual editorialising that can occur. Both politicians' comments reflect typical political strategies, with Wong avoiding engagement with controversial sources and Birmingham probing for weaknesses in the government's stance. The article discusses an exchange between Penny Wong, the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, and Simon Birmingham, a member of the Coalition. Birmingham questioned Wong about Hamas's response to a UN General Assembly resolution granting Palestine additional rights in UN forums. Wong responded by refusing to engage with what she termed "Hamas propaganda" and criticized Birmingham for raising it. What I took from this article was that Wong criticized Birmingham for mentioning Hamas, stating she doesn't want to promote their propaganda, and this is a typical back-and-forth is part of regular political debates where politicians challenge each other's views and decisions. **LONGER ANALYSIS** The context of the UN resolution and its implications for Palestine is a verifiable fact. The UN General Assembly did pass a resolution granting Palestine additional rights, which is a matter of public record. Wong's refusal to engage with what she calls "Hamas propaganda" reflects a standard diplomatic stance to avoid legitimizing groups deemed terrorist organizations by many countries, including Australia. Her criticism of Birmingham for mentioning Hamas is a political maneuver to shift focus and maintain a strong stance against perceived support for terrorist narratives. Birmingham's question aims to scrutinize Wong's stance on the UN resolution and its implications. This is a typical opposition tactic to challenge and probe the government's foreign policy positions. By referencing Hamas's response, Birmingham seeks to create a link between the resolution and controversial groups, potentially to highlight perceived risks or shortcomings in Wong's position.
Everyone who would have legit info on the contrary on the same level as the \*sitting minister for foreign affairs\* probably isn't risking their security clearance on Reddit.
Honestly. I don't know the answer to that one, but is that the only ones who could have such info?
How do you explain the fact that other countries didn't do the same thing? Is our Foreign Affairs Minister better informed than theirs?
I don’t know, but forgive me for doubting that you do.
She obediently toes the US line.
There are many votes on record where she is far apart from the US, you can easily check it yourself instead of repeating shit like this.
She isn’t even toeing the line in the linked video though
Just like she did regarding what they were discussing in this senate estimates exchange… oh wait. Stop gobbling up Hamas and Iranian propaganda on TikTok. This isn’t completely facetious either - it’s been shown that’s where they operate. Among other platforms too, but TikTok has had the biggest outreach for them so in all likelihood your view of the conflict, and that of Penny Wong as a result, comes directly from Hamas/Iranian propagandists on TikTok.
But i will gobble the Zionist manifesto with eagerness. The same zionists who have flattened Gaza, destroyed all the hospitals (tunnels, you know?), collectively starved the people, slaughtered 40,000 souls (brownies, who cares?), and is actively supporting and enabling famine. But tunnels. But hamas. But October 7th. Nothing to do with decades of subjugation and humiliation of Palestinians. Nothing to do with stealing of Palestinian land and property. Only the Zionist can drop 2000lb bombs on densely populated areas and our politicians (puppets?) will look the other way.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Launch rockets out of tunnels*
Regardless of your stance on the conflict, shouldn't our Minister for Foreign Affairs be up to date on what both sides are releasing as media statements if she is going to weigh in?
Senator Birmingham was obviously trying to trap Minister Wong in a "gotcha" moment. She knew that, and declined to take the bait. Good for her. She's got more important things to do than play political games with the Opposition.
Frankly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has better things to do than be on top of every single statement about a conflict on the other side of the globe that involves a country that doesn't really have all that much significance to Australia in the scheme of things. I'd much rather that they be abreast of affairs more local to our region and with nations with which we have more immediate concerns. There are plenty of issues in our immediate region which require DFAT's attention. The landslide in PNG. The recent Solomon Islands election. The crisis in New Caledonia. Many other things that simply don't attract the attention of our media, but are of more immediate concern to the nation.
Or both as per ya job. My job holds many facets all of which I know and remember. If your job is to be a public employee and know this shit, Then know this shit or fuck off
If your job doesn't require you to ever prioritise what you pay attention too even to the point of disregarding or delegating certain issues that may fall under your role but are of little value well lucky you for having such a simple vocation. Some of us have roles that do require making choices between what's important and what's just noise.
Your job's probably easy as fuck then. Flipping the patties on time and making sure the nuggets are boxed up is a little different to managing foreign affairs for a nation.
It's pointless political point scoring, as is obvious in the video. If the Department doesn't brief the Minister, it's idiotic to expect the Minister to know. The department will brief the Minister about things that are important to Australia and are time sensitive. What Hamas says or doesn't say about a UN resolution is neither of these things. Birmingham knows because he's not running DFAT and has nothing else better to do with his time. You might want Wong to engage in pointless political games, but I'd rather have her do her job and run DFAT properly. Something it's evident that the Coalition did poorly during their time in power as Labor's first job in that area was damage control for their first year. Repairing the relationships that the Coalition damaged.
When Australia votes in the UN, should they vote as the country sees appropriate or should they try to figure out how one of the two terrorist organisations are going to feel about the votes. If the country agrees with how we are voting who gives a crap what Hamas thinks? This was a typical political gotcha attempt and Penny Wong said, sorry I don't want to play your reindeer games.
Why should the foreign minister be up to date on statements by a terrorist organisation?
Because they are the co-belligerents in one of the most important and controversial global conflicts, about which a motion was passed at the UN. Genuinely weird defense from Wong, classic failed Labor triangulation and attempt to out-patriot the Liberals.
You understand this is subjective right? Israel would be considered by some as conducting state terrorism. That's not a good enough excuse, it's putting your head in the sand due to politics.
It’s not subjective to the Australian government. Hamas is a designated terrorist organisation.
And I'm sure sime middle eastern nations 'objectively' think the opposite......so that makes it a subjective view.....
So what? Penny Wong is an Australian politician, not a middle eastern one.
And an Australian politician doesn't change what subjectivity is as well. It doesn't change to being an objective fact just because that's the option that is more convenient. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that.
I don’t really care what other people think about Hamas. They have values that simply don’t align with Australia’s strategic policy, values and goals. For example the destruction of all Jews is part of their official charter. We CANNOT recognise or support an organisation that believes this.
But we align with an apartheid state committing genocide? Is this why we recognise and support an organisation that does this?
I’m not going to get into who is right and wrong. Both Hamas and Israel are justified in their own eyes. That’s why they are savagely fighting each other in Gaza.The Australian government needs to take a position that benefits Australia the most. Despite what you think, we are not taking sides at all, we are calling for a 2 state solution and ceasefire. We are not a moral beacon for the world to look at and admire, we simply act in our own interests, and that’s ok. For example we tolerate the Indonesian treatment of west puapans because it’s more important that we have a good relationship with Indonesia than the tribes of PNG. Geopolitics is a cold, calculated game.
Sounds like we need to buy this 'freedom fighter' a ticket back to the middle east...
It's a pretty bloody famous quote, nothing to do what I think.
Holy shit what mental gymnastics are you doing right now.
Like Iran? 😅
Yup, therefore subjective....
Oh sweet child
As long as you're not "designated" it doesn't matter how many children and babies you murder. Don't you get it? /s
Wouldn't some say the same about the Israeli government?
Yeah that's my point.
On what planet is Hamas being a designated terrorist organisation ‘subjective’?
It kind of is, given countless other nations (as well as the UN) haven't designated Hamas as such. There's absolutely no consistency in its application according to any established or agreed-upon criteria. Edit: I don’t mind the downvotes, but I’m genuinely curious to know where people disagree. The designation isn’t universal, so it’s already arbitrary, and from an Australian perspective we very obviously don’t hold all parties, governments, and states to the same standard i.e. there’s no consistency in the application of the designation.
> from an Australian perspective we very obviously don’t hold all parties, governments, and states to the same standard Yep, interesting that people have downvoted you without any responses
I will respond to this. The UN has 48 muslim majority countries and 1 Jewish one, so Israel will lose on a 1 country, 1 vote basis. There are many terrorist organisations that are recognised by the UN, most of which relate to Islamic fundamentalism, but surprise, not any that surround or attack Israel. It seems the only ones that make the list are terrorist organisations threatening muslim countries or communities. So Hamas is not on the list and nor is Hezbollah. The Arab League recognises Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, but would never bring it up at the UN, because Israel. Then you have the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) of former colonial states in Africa, most of South America and Asia who support not getting involved in domestic affairs of other states, and if they do, to do it from a position of working with both sides. China and Russia are not members of the NAM but certainly prescribe to these principles as observers. They may support the Palestinian cause of self-determination, but that doesn't mean they support Hamas. They generally do support Israel's existence and a compromise 2 state solution. The Western world, which includes Australia, recognises Hamas as a terrorist organisation due to its antisemitic charter focused on killing Jews, and the ongoing terrorist attacks against Israel, an ally, including large-scale bombings against Israeli civilian targets. Just because they decided to pretend to present a cleaner image in 2017 doesn't mean their actions or behaviour have changed. So no, what you are seeing as subjective is a misinterpretation of the Non Aligned Movement and the self interests of muslim majority states.
It seems you really went out of your way to support my argument. The designation is essentially motivated by political and strategic whims, rather than by principles or defined criteria. The only difference is the merit (and vague, skewed notion of morality) you assign to respective parties and their reasoning. And Australia does not recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation based on what was in a charter no longer in use (and effectively hasn’t been since before they were elected to power). And if large scale bombings against civilian targets are a reason (they are), well, again, thank you for offering further evidence in support of my argument.
I gave reasons why all other Islamic terrorist groups are recognised and the politics behind why other countries do not recognise hamas as such, which is politics indeed. Anti Israel politics. So no. But keep supporting your “freedom fighters.” They love your contribution to your future under sharia law.
>I gave reasons why all other Islamic terrorist groups are recognised and the politics behind why other countries do not recognise hamas as such, which is politics indeed. Effectively demonstrating my point. Thank you.
Yes just in the opposite way you think. I.e, confirming your anti Israel anti Australian attitude
193 UN member states and only 7 + EU (27 countries) consider Hamas a terrorist org. So yes, it’s subjective. So most of the world thinks it’s wrong to summarily execute political members of Hamas (i.e. non-combatants like civil servants), but Israel and its allies think it’s fine.
[удалено]
Mate, call 000 immediately. Concussions can be fatal.
This is assuming that the question was asked in good faith. Which is not the case here.
[удалено]
You’ll meet with Murdoch after winning the election though.
“So you’re uninformed on their statements?”
Is it so painful for us to admit that Israel is a satellite state for America to continue their geopolitical intentions in ME? The logic in all this shit is so obviously flawed, so why lie?
I mean honestly yes. It's geopolitics, they never say the quiet part loud. No one wants to be the one to call the entirety of Australia on the world stage as a puppet of America either. The reality is America has their hands so far up our pollys arses' that America can operate their jaws.
This really isn’t the case, we could easily tell the yanks to piss off if we wanted to. The Phillipines kicked the Americans out in the 90s with virtually no issues. We continue to work with the US because it’s in our interest to do so, and it has been this way for a very long time. That’s an incredibly successful partnership. The alternative is to keep switching alliances every couple of years to keep it fresh, or go isolationist mode, that that means a huge expansion of our defences forces at the cost of other public funding.
So our options are: go alone and die or follow America.
No, we can either go alone and loose many benefits of being aligned to the west, or we can continue to operate as we have since federation.
I suppose you're right. It just seems politically easier than to pretend ignorance to the situation, especially in the information era.
It isn't really, supporting Israel is, if anything, contrary to American strategic interests in the middle east, and Israel is ultimately a strategic liability much more than an asset, the Israel lobby is just very good at their job
Don't understand what you're talking about. America will never trust SA no matter how much they share interests, comparatively Israel is a Western state in the ME, and is completely dependant on the US protection. The US is able to use Israel as a satellite whenever they wish to project power in the ME, and also serves as a way to further deny more Russia/China land grabs.
The US actually usually doesn't use Israel to project power into the middle east because Israel is very concerned with limiting tension with its neighbours. If the US projects power into the middle east it's usually from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or aircraft carriers, only very rarely does the US actually use Israel.
But it can, if needed, and Israel wouldn't complain.
Yes, they would. When the US invaded Iraq they wanted to use Israeli bases to attack Saddam Hussein's forces and the Israelis said no, we don't want to be involved.
Do you have a source, because I can find nothing of what you're saying.
I haven't been able to find where I read it, so I can't provide the source, it was some article from a while ago. My only evidence I could provide is what's on [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Role_of_Israel), which is: > Israeli officials warned the Bush administration against invading Iraq, saying that it would destabilize the region and empower the much more dangerous regime in Iran and >At Washington's behest, Israel did not provide vocal support for the war, as the US government was concerned that Israeli support for or participation in the war would potentially alienate the Arab world The Israeli's weren't against the war, but they didn't really view it as important, and thought it would likely destablise the region, and had no interest in supporting it. The US thought that it was good Israel wasn't interesting, because if they did get help from the Israelis it would likely alienate the arabs they were trying to win over. So not only did Israel not want to be involved, the US didn't want Israel involved because they thought they would be a liability.
Yeah, I read the wiki too, plenty of it doesn't even have citations.
>Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilising to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson. https://www.ipsnews.net/2007/08/politics-israel-warned-us-not-to-invade-iraq-after-9-11/ >Publicly, Sharon played the silent ally; he neither criticized nor supported the Iraq adventure. One reason for his relative silence was Washington’s explicit request that Israel refrain from openly backing its invasion of an Arab country or in any way intervening, lest its blessing damn the United States in Arab eyes. https://web.archive.org/web/20090525071637/http://www.forward.com/articles/9839/
No, she only reads and actions Zionist propaganda. Her decision to cut UNRWA funding was baffling, shameful and disgusting. It's been swept under the rug so quickly by the politicians and media. Our government actually directly contributed to the famine and genocide based on bad Zionist propaganda.
UNRWA is funded yearly, and had already been funded when funding was paused for 7 weeks to evaluate Israeli claims before being restarted. No, we didn't directly contribute to the famine. Besides, you can send all the aid you want, but if Israel simply destroys it while the US backs them up it really doesn't matter what anyone else does.
Didn't they restore UNRWA funding?
Not to mention she smears those protesting against genocide, as anti-semitic. More propaganda. More enablement.
More popcorn as I watch Israel’s next move. 😁🥳
[удалено]
The student takes on the master. And fails.
What about Yemen and the thousands of deaths there? Why doesn't Penny Wong say much about that?
Because she was being asked about Hamas statements. Hamas doesn't operate in Yemen.
Yes but she has not said a word about Yemen in the past (even before the Palestine, Israel conflict).
She wouldn't say boo about this either if it didn't have people marching in the streets.
Hamas and Israel are both fundamentally opposing 2 state solutions. She's not interested in the Hamas and Iranian propaganda yet she's enforcing the Isreali propaganda on us and trying to silence us.
Hasn't Hamas stated, not just in its current charter but in recent interviews, that it would accept a Palestinian state along pre-1967 borders...?
Temporarily. The updated charter in 2017 removed references to killing all the Jews and destroying Israel, and replaced it with an acceptance of 2 states but without recognising Israel, and the end goal of only a Palestinian state from the river to the sea. So no, not really
“Temporarily” is interesting (and I say this as an advocate for a single state). Putting aside the refusal to recognise Israel (since recognition of statehood by others is relatively meaningless), I wonder what carries more weight in terms of longevity; the public statements and subsequent section of the charter, or the stated want for a Palestine from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. All of which still places it some distance ahead of Israel, in both rhetoric and action, in seeking to move forward.
Firstly, it's lipstick on a pig. Hamas creating a "friendly" charter in 2017 doesn't change the underlying constitution of the organisation, which still involves an Islamic caliphate and is based on the anti-semitic protocols of the elders of Zion. They continued to and continue to send their children to military training camps, and provide textbooks calling for the killing of Jews. UNRWA runs the schools, Hamas provides the textbooks. There is no longevity for the Palestinian people in a civil war brought on by a propagandist jihadist organisation that wants to martyr them rather than compromise. One would argue that Israel taking all of its settlers out of Gaza in 2005/6 was seeking to move forward, in line with the Oslo accords, met by the election of Hamas and the Palestinians choosing the path they wanted. You're missing the part of this that this is an existential threat to Israel, not a joy ride. In an us and them situation, there will be blood.
Meanwhile, Israel's young men and women are forcibly enlisted in military service (and yes, they too have non-compulsory military-themed summer camps). Which is interesting, since none of the Palestinians I know were ever enrolled in military training camps, yet every Israeli I've met served in the IDF. And what do you know of the Palestinian education system? Like actually know? Because if you're concerned about violent propaganda being taught in schools, boy do I have news for you. There is no longevity for the Palestinian people under violent occupation. Speaking of which, withdrawing settlers from Gaza while maintain said occupation (and expanding settlements across the West Bank) hardly seems a way forward. Speaking of existential threats to Israel as Palestinians are murdered by the thousands certainly speaks volumes.
Israel has conscription yes, so would I if the countries around me were trying to kill me since the UN voted to create the country. You're acting like they have a choice. Again, this is existential due to the ongoing inability for Palestinians to compromise. What do you know of the Palestinian education system? I know enough that the US, European and Australian government investigations in 2018-2021 around textbooks identified that the Hamas supplied textbooks were teaching children about being martyrs by killing Jews and going to heaven. Funding was paused and UNRWA released a pathetic statement that they run the schools but don't supply the textbooks. When you refer to violent propaganda being taught, are you referring to the education you are getting at Melbourne Uni? The Palestinian people are not a unified people. Their own leaders have been in a pseudo civil war for 20 years. The West Bank and Gaza are not the same thing. And while Israel, and in particular mostly American Israeli settlers in the West Bank are not acting appropriately, show me any 'occupation' in Gaza. Anything that exists stems from Hamas actions against Israel. The border wall and the blockade of items were all put in place post Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel. Palestinians are involved in a war that they started and unfortunately civilians are being killed. I'm not sure why you expect Israel to roll over and leave their hostages or bodies of their dead. Hamas took Israelis - give them back or stfu. There is no accountability for the billions of aid the Palestinians have received, nothing to show but hatred and tunnels (and leaders sending their people to die while sitting in Qatar). They have no interest in uplifting their people. • Ismail Haniyeh in 2020: He explained that Hamas rejects ceasefire agreements by which, “Gaza would become Singapore,” preferring to remain at war with Israel until a Palestinian state is established from the river to the sea. “We cannot, in exchange for money or projects, give up Palestine and our weapons. We will not give up the resistance... We will not recognize Israel, Palestine must stretch from the \[Jordan\] River to the \[Mediterranean\] Sea.” • Hamas member, Ghazi Hamas on October 24, 2023: “Israel is a country that has no place on our land \[…\] because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation.” (October 24, 2023, LBC TV (Lebanon)). He also vowed to repeat the October 7 attacks “time and again until Israel is annihilated,” and expressing a desire to “sacrifice martyrs” (referring to Gazan civilians) for Hamas’ ideological aim of destroying Israel.
Since the UN voted to create a country as part of a process in which Palestinians had no say; a country on land where a native people already lived; a country predicated on the expulsion of the native population. No people would accept that. Placing the burden on Palestinians to accept compromise when Israel is the occupying (nuclear) state with a military force and the West's backing, again, speaks volumes. Every compromise the Palestinians have been asked or forced to take is akin to a worsening of the status quo and an acceptance of their ongoing oppression. You're also conflating investigations, misinterpreting findings, and holding Israel to a different standard by failing to apply any scrutiny to the parties carrying out the investigations, and neglecting (seemingly entirely) what's taught in schools across Israel. I encourage you to read Palestine in Israeli School Books by Israeli academic Nurit Peled-Elhanan. FYI: I'm not a student at Melbourne University, nor have I ever been. I am currently not a student at all. If you must know, I graduated many years ago in Perth with a history major (part of which required the study of Islam and world politics). I've other degrees from elsewhere too, if it's important for you to know where I was educated? In any case, I've been doing this longer than you know. You're correct, the Palestinians are not a unified people (as if Israelis are). Israel has worked very hard to ensure that's not the case, and is indeed one of the reasons Hamas exists in its current form. Hamas and Fatah have attempted to form a coalition government (rejected by Israel and the United States). This was driven by the Prisoners' Document in 2006, where leaders of Fatah, Hamas, the PFLP, and Islamic Jihad, issued a document which sought to bring relevant parties together to work to develop a program founded (in no small part) on the basis of a two state solution. The Prisoners' Document was so named because those leaders - as has always been the case - were held in Israeli prisons. The occupation of Gaza didn't end when Israel withdrew its forces, evacuated settlers, and dismantled settlements. They maintained control over the territory (via land, water, air, electromagnetic waves, and population registry). Israel tightened its grip following the legitimate election (according to international observers) of Hamas, but they never relinquished their hold at any stage prior. Palestinians did not start this war. There was no peace for Palestinians in Gaza (or the West Bank, for what it's worth), prior to October 2023. And you needn't say 'unfortunately' - your disregard for Palestinian lives is writ large, just as your concern for hostages is (unless, it seems, they're Israeli).
There are so many propagandist lies in what you've written that I'm going to number my responses and then you can choose to either stop responding with your bullshit or to address your lies and take accountability for spreading false information: 1. The UN voted and colonial powers split most of the world into countries. Why are the Palestinians different? 2. There is no eviodence of Palestinians being native. There is no record of Palestine ever being a country or Palestininan people. There is evidence of referring to the whole region as Palestine, which is like saying "John comes from the Middle East". There is however 3000 years or uninterrupted and archeologically proven evidence of Jews in the region. 3. Hundreds of millions of people accepted UN votes and colonial splits. Do I really need to start talking about Cyprus or India/Pakistan/Bangladesh or the 100+ other countries created in this way. Do you even want to talk about the aboriginal people of Naarm who were pushed out and had to accept it. Why are the Palestinans different? 4. Generally when a people are defeated they compromise. Like if the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or if the indigienous people of Australia did not surrender, they would have all been wiped out. 5. There is nothing wrong with the West's backing. The west is the most liberal and most prosperous multi-national group of people in history. Why do you hate the West? 6. The Palestinans have not accepted compromise. The arabs went to war in 1947, in 1967. And each time ended up worse for them. And let's not pretend Israel even ran the West Bank and Gaza before 1967, they did not. They refuse to accept Israel being there, that is their choice and these are the conseuqences. 7. I have read Nurit Peled-Elhanan. She is clearly an anti-zionist. There is nothing in her book that references not recognising a two state solution. Israel does not pretend to recognise Gaza as Israel. Israeli education reinforces the need for security to maintain an Israeli state. The Palestinans are different, they enforce the need for martyrdom and refuse to create their state. These are not the same thing. 8. In 2006 Hamas went to war in Gaza killing all resistance to themselves including Fatah in Gaza. 9. The Prisoner's document you are referring to was not initially signed by Hamas. They only agreed to sign it after it removed recognition of Israel, aka not a 2 state solution. Hamas also swore to continue to attack Jews which led Israel to denounce the document, calling it a ″stepping away from peace". Which it was, because if Israel doesn't exist therre is no peace. 10. The document was signed 3 days after Hamas crossed over into Israel and captured Gilad Shalit, again showing why they can't be trusted. 11. Sheik Abdel Khaliq al-Natsheh, the Hamas representative was in an Israeli prison for being convicted of 5 counts of murder. These are not innocent people. 12. Israel, as a sovereign nation, built a wall to protect itself against ongoing terrorist attacks, as well as destorying tunnels used for that same purpose. There is nothing wrong with that. The Palestinans have no need to go to Israel and certainly not without permission, it is a border. 13. The wall was built intially in 1994, not when Hamas won the election. It was increased in 2006 because the buffer zone was removed and so Palestinans could now access the fence. Again, to protect against terrorist attacks. 14. The wall was so successful that between 1994 until 2004, only one terrorist attack took place in Israel from a terrorist in Gaza. 15. Because the wall was successful, the 'peaceful' Hamas changed tactics and started firing rockets at Israel instead. So Israel had to invest in the iron dome 16. Because the wall was successful, the 'peaceful' Hamas stated building tunnels to Israel and were successful on a few occassions. So Israel had to build an anti tunnel barrier 17. I can't imagine why Israel is strict on what goes through the border to Gaza. I also can't believe that you don't talk about Egypt in all of this - who ran the strip to 1967 but refused to take it back, and equally have a border crossing which they control in a similar manner due to the ongoing terrorist attacks they had before they did it. 18. All of this money could have been spent on building their own state infrastructure and uplifting their people, instead Hamas has ruined that chance that Israel gave them in 2005/6.
1. Yes. That's not quite the win you seem to think; however, the treatment (expulsion) of the native population at the expense of a non-native population is, while not unique, is deserving of consideration by comparison. 2. Yes there is. That's a blatant lie. And there is no record of Palestine being a country because nation states are a relatively modern, western invention. But, as you note, Palestine is (and was) the region; and the Palestinians, of which Jews were included, were a people who have historically been referred to as such. Nobody claims there were no Jewish people indigenous to the area, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring that up. 3. They just accepted the splits, did they? One would think there was more to it, what with the genocides, ethnic cleansing, and ongoing wars. That you think pointing to Indigenous Australians - who I am more than willing to talk about (because why wouldn't I be?) - lends your argument credibility speaks volumes for how little you understand what's being argued. And again, no people should be expected to accept what was agreed behind their (Palestinian's) back, not least of all given the direct and immediate cost to them (and what was promised). 4. They have. Also, that's a pretty gross argument, particularly where it concerns weaponising the treatment of Indigenous Australians. Shame on you. 5. If you're unaware of how the West has built and maintained its hegemony, and why that might lead some to be critical of both their influence and conduct, you may need to revisit high school level history. Even now, supposed leaders of the West, namely the United States, are turning their back on the very institutions they helped to establish, or at least use at their choosing, in pursuit of violence and the maintenance of their (admittedly waning) dominance. 6. See 4. They have. There are records of them having done so. 7. Is the Israeli professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem an anti-Zionist? Big claim (one I'm sure supported by evidence). Why are you discussing 'not recognising a two-state solution' as if that's all you took from the book? Why the double standards as you grant Israel carte blanche to conduct itself however it so chooses i.e. if Israelis do something, it's to protect itself; if Palestinians do so, it's an act of aggression? And since you read the book, what else does it find about Israeli education? Go on... 8. What was the broader context to those killings? And no, that's not a comment on the legality (or morality) of Hamas' actions. So again, go on... 9. Hamas, alongside others, signed (the National Conciliation Document) once they came to an agreement on conditions. That tends to be how it works. And not explicitly recognising Israel as a state is not akin to refusing a two-state solution (as was outlined in the document). 10. What did Israel do during, before, and after this period, and indeed during, before and after negotiations between parties? How many Palestinians did they detain without charge or due process? 11. Given Israel's conviction rate of Palestinians, and the crimes for which he was charged (even after 2017, he was being held in administrative attention), I'd at least apply some measure of scrutiny to what took place, which I know you're reluctant to do. And given those charges emerged as a result of clashes in which Palestinians were killed, I'm curious if again you hold Israelis to the same standard... 12. Again, this paints Israel as a victim of others' making and ignores both the reality of the wall as a tool of oppression, and the conditions leading to the violence Israel claims necessitates the wall. Here, I refer to point 7 re: if Israelis do something, it's to protect itself; if Palestinians do so, it's an act of aggression 13. See above. Also, what preceded the wall? 14. Walls tend to do that. Now take a step back and consider what tends to lead to those attacks (don't bother, I know how that goes but that answer involves an occupation). 15. See above and part of point 10. 16. See points 12-15. 17. We're not talking about Egypt, but if you want me to condemn Egypt, a nation that's rarely ever been a friend to Palestinians, than I am more than willing to do so. But equating Egypt's treatment of Palestinians to Israel's in any serious capacity is simply dishonest. 18. Israel never gave them a chance. It deliberately deprived them of the infrastructure and resources needed while maintaining its occupation.
You are using a compulsory period of national service as a rhetorical weapon against Israel? Really? South Korea also has mandatory military service. Are you hammering them for being worried about North Korea? Let's leave aside Switzerland, because they haven't had a neighbour invade them and attempt to completely annex their country in the last century. Those are the two examples of mandatory military service that I'm familiar with without doing any research at all. There are probably others, including many of the combatants in WWI and WWII. It's worth pointing out that not every Israeli serves either. There are exemptions available based on ethnic background and religious belief. It's actually a growing political issue in Israel that the growing (as a result of much higher relative birth rates) ultra-orthodox Jewish population doesn't serve yet typically votes in a way that results in a greater risk of conflict, when soldiers are more needed. So when you say "every Israeli you've ever met served in the IDF," you're actually saying that you've never had any contact with an Arab, Druze or ultra-orthodox Israeli person, despite those groups collectively making up somewhere north of 20% of Israel's population. Perhaps your encounters with Israelis have been self-selecting in some way, because assuming you've met at least 5, your sample is not representative. The rest of what you've said is valid (though as a lawyer I'd probably quibble with the use of the word "murder" because it's a legal term with a specific meaning and I'm thoroughly sick of words being deliberately misapplied to attempt to lend force to arguments). I just thought I'd add context to your conscription argument, because I think it's necessary to understand it before passing judgement.
Yes, I am absolutely using a compulsory period of national service as a rhetorical weapon against Israel, particularly in light of the very specific criticism being aimed at Palestinians. And my views on compulsory national service is consistent. I'm aware not every Israeli serves and that it is a growing political issue, particularly in light of recent high-profile objectors. When I say every Israeli I've ever met served in the IDF, I mean precisely that. Two things remain true: (1) the majority of Israelis are drafted to the IDF, and (2) Israelis encountered abroad, such as in Australia, are almost certainly more likely to come the Jewish population required to serve (i.e. the sample is unlikely to accurately reflect Israel's demographic makeup). As for my use of the word 'murder', I did so purposefully and fairly. Since this isn't a legal debate - and since I'm content to accuse Israel of intentional, unlawful killing based on its record of having done so (also note the charges outlined in the applications for arrest warrants) - I have no qualms using the term.
> As for my use of the word 'murder', I did so purposefully and fairly. Since this isn't a legal debate - and since I'm content to accuse Israel of intentional, unlawful killing based on its record of having done so (also note the charges outlined in the applications for arrest warrants) - I have no qualms using the term. You can do whatever you want. Just know that there's a difference between unlawful killing and murder, so you're misusing it. If there wasn't a difference, the crime of manslaughter would not exist. Feel free to use homicide if you want. Although in the context of Gaza you could use femicide or infanticide, which are both pretty strong words that actually apply. "Mass infanticide" is going to work for your purposes, perhaps even better than "murder", and won't annoy people who care what words mean. I just prefer honest argument, where people use the right words in the right context. We're seeing an increasing disregard for that in a post-truth society, where the only goal is to confuse people with visceral reactions to trigger words, rather than persuade them with logic.
Again, you seem to be under the misapprehension we're engaged in legal discourse. Even so, I wrote '**intentional**, unlawful killing', and pointed to the charge outlined in the application for arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant (specifically 'wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i)' and 'extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity'). I very much care what words mean and only ever seek to use them deliberately and with purpose. And so I can only repeat: I have no qualms using the term.
Hamas isn't the government of Palestine. Isn't that what we keep being told?
1967 borders would be insanely generous
Us?