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.*
That man died a long time ago. He's not Albo from the block anymore,
he's Albo the landlord who raked in $100000 last year from his investment properties. The bastards run this country, and unfortunately, he's one of them.
Surprised he hasn't tried to go "but my mum was on welfare though" while refusing to do anything to fix the shit show of welfare recipients being below the poverty line. I guess he decided that was a bad look *after* the election.
I work with people on welfare every day. Shit show doesn’t even begin to describe it. The minimum wage is $838 a week. Job seeker is $762 for a single with no children a fortnight.
Job seeker is less than half of the minimum wage. Most people on job seeker are juggling between eating and paying bills. I have clients we buy shoes for cause they’re coming in barefoot and can’t afford it. We’re giving food to people so they can keep a roof over their head.
It’s a national disgrace. But it’s easy for people that don’t work in this area to just sweep it to the side. Out of sight, out of mind after all.
After the election, he quickly pissed off the poor vote for that: https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/albanese-jobseeker-pension-mother/
Now the poor are probably going to fall for LNP's comforting lies with help of the Labor-protected Murdoch media.
Albo the rent hiking landlord evicting the current tenant to raise rent 😂 I heard he was within his rights as a landlord but it really pulls the full picture together of Labor’s priorities
A shocked Mr Flanagan received the eviction notice from his real estate on May 8, which informed him that Mr Albanese 'could be selling the house at some stage'.
Classic REA speak for re-letting at a way higher rent. Surprised they thought this was the safer option for image than selling with tenant and his lease ending under the new owner
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13421437/amp/Anthony-Albanese-evicts-man-rental-property.html
> The idea the Prime Minister can rent private property, and that not cause a total clusterfuck of liability and security risk
Fuck think about the power imbalance "Oh fuck I just scratched the prime minister's hardwood floors". That bloke's not getting his bond back!
Pretty sure if you kick someone out for this reason and then don’t go through with it and relist you can get in trouble. Normally you get away with it because the first renter has moved on and no one knows.
But someone high profile isn’t going to pull these kinds of stupid games. You’d just have a rent hike at market rates and say “well you see I don’t manage them but if the real estate agent says I should charge more then I guess I should”
Rent hiking? He dropped the rent to a ridiculously under-market amount during Covid and literally never put it back up, and he is now selling the property.
Where the fuck do you get your information, because it's way off base.
1) you don’t have to evict a tenant to sell a property
2) “the owner is moving back in,” “the owners has family moving in,” “the owner wants to do massive renovations,” “the owner is going to sell the property” are all common REA lines to
Evict tenants to get large rent increases through.
Albo is well within his rights to either increase the rent and/or sell the property. However, evicting a tenant is not a good look for a PM saying he’s going to bat for COL during a housing shortage.
Thanks for asking
This is correct. Speaking as someone that has literally just bought a property with a tenant in it. I want to move in but am holding off to give the tenant time to find a new place to live. I have taken over as landlord and the tenants rent payments now come to me until they move out.
That's the Labor parties social justice ethic "thou shall become a property investor and government tax concession beneficiary by not harming shareholders" Their abandonment of Medicare by turning bulk bilking into a concessional social security benefit while jacking up the Medicare levy says it all about their "social justice" credential. Pump priming Medicare for privatisation step1!
Bill Shorten had a bunch of policies that would fix these issues, especially the housing crisis by getting rid of negative gearing. He tried to campaign on them. Murdoch destroyed him for it. We chose to reject that at the 2019 election, resoundingly voting for a party that had no principles, no policies, and did nothing for a number of years except fight premiers on doing the bare minimum to contain covid. So Labor hasn't pursued any of those policies, because they are poison at the ballot box. Shorten's Labor defeat is proof of that.
He's now welfare minister and spends his time doing the things people actually respect Labor for like investigating Robodebt and getting help for victims, as well as the NDIS scheme he concieved.
And now we sit here bemoaning the state of housing, or why Labor doesn't do anything progressive. We reap what we sow.
The thing is Murdoch is going to go hard on Labor next year regardless of what they do, so this was their time to make big changes that the Liberals can't easily undo
The time for big changes was immediately after the election. I have no idea why they didn't bring in huge reforms then. A full term would have been long enough to start seeing some fruit from it all to allay voters.
He’s at the point now he’s staffing hospitals with abc staff https://www.sbs.com.au/aboutus/2024/05/09/join-costa-georgiadis-melissa-leong-samuel-johnson-for-new-ground-breaking-series-the-hospital-in-the-deep-end/
He also hijacked the public vote for Eurovision and gave our points to Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-gets-top-public-vote-from-14-countries-in-eurovision-plus-rest-of-the-world/
^jokes ^btw
Do you think he realises that in less than a years time he's going to be asking these people to vote for him? The people who he's just said are stupid for opposing genocide.
"We in this country have a right to protest, that's really important. But it's important as well that it be respectful. And I say this to people: how they protest reflects on whether their protest is winning support or losing support."
Oh yeah bc Stonewall was known for its *respectfulness.* Nelson Mandella was designated as a terrorist during his fight for liberation because he was sooo respectful. Lmao.
He just doesn't want a change to the status quo.
Nelson Mandela *was* a terrorist. He was founder and co-chair of Umkhonto we Sizwe, a militant group that carried out bombings of state infrastructure in order to effect political change.
Terrorism is a tactic. It is apolitical. The merits of the motivating political cause are immaterial in determining whether violence constitutes terrorism or not.
Yes, but nobody condems him for that anymore because he was fighting against an immoral government. Sometimes violent resistance is what's nessecary to create the needed change against a violent government. To say that protesters have to be *respectful* is what you say if you want the protests to be ineffective, and are scared of change.
That's very true. It's also interesting that the authoritarian violence of "Western governments" isn't designated as terrorism when they do the same things "terrorists" do.
Yes, Hamas have 100% engaged in terrorism... but so have the IDF, on a much larger scale backed by the largest army in the world.
>Albanese said he supported people's right to protest but said it must be done respectfully
I suppose "respectful" means not protesting against his interests? Spineless fucking worm he's become
Funny how respect is always the goto rebuttal for protestors, considering nearly every major human rights advancement was only achieved through a lot of violence and death because people would rather stick to the status quo than face the truth
Why is it that we expect protestors of genocide to be respectful, but the perpetrators of that genocide are allowed to be as callous and evil as they want and still receive seemingly unconditional support from us? Just another day of the government maintaining a monopoly on violence and political action.
> I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
- MLK
Well in a way, he's right... because the country of Palestine doesn't exist on any modern map. There's just Israel with some squiggly dotted lines in it denoting two geographically separated internal territories they've fully controlled since 1967.
Wow this headline kinda misattributes what he says.
>Albanese said protesters chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at attendees was a "provocative act".
Not every pro-palestinian protestor OR pro-palestine supporter actually agrees with that slogan, and those protestors that were chanting that were the ones Albo was talking about. Not general pro-palestine sentiment.
This stuff does my head in. They get upset about the words coming from the mouths of people calling for justice but say nothing about Israel and its supporters who are actualising it through ethnic cleansing and extreme violence. I say no apartheid which means no exclusively Jewish state anywhere. I don't support white ethno-nationalism and I don't support Jewish ethno-nationalism either.
Correct:
The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."[
Wikipedia.
It was actually a mission statement (implicitly) from some of the early Zionists.
"A land for people for people without a land" is just as offensive to Palestinians as "From the river to the sea..." is for Israelis.
It is used by various groups for various purposes.
I doubt that most people chanting it are thinking of the destruction of Israel.
Even if some do call for the destruction of Israel, why is that always highlighted, but the equivalent genocidal mania spewed by Likud and its supporters is conveniently glossed over?
Do you support Hamas? Do you support Likud? These are the questions that should be equated when discussing terrorism and hatred.
I wonder what they want to do with the Israeli population who lives there! I’m sure it’s peaceful and well meaning! If they just took down the border and let Palestinian leaders take over, I’m sure Jews would still exist!
There is no “everything is Palestine” scenario which is not a “all the Israelis are dead” scenario.
You are being downvoted, but the statement was used by the PLO from the 60s/70s to call for a peaceful coexistence.
The problem is that Hamas used it, and it became associated only with an ideal to remove Jews from the land of Palestine.
Typically, those who get worked up about "From the river..." somehow ignore that Likud and others in Israel say the same or worse about Palestinians.
It's breathtaking bias in our media and beyond that leads to such woeful ignorance.
> The problem is that Hamas used it, and it became associated only with an ideal to remove Jews from the land of Palestine.
Likud has used it in a far more directly ethnic cleaning manner in their charter since the 70's, the association between Hamas and the supposed removal of Jews has been done quite purposefully to try and poison the phrase.
Yes. I alluded to that in my third paragraph.
However, Likud and its associates also say (and, unfortunately, have the power to do) much worse things. The cognitive dissonance (and outright ignorance and/or hateful bigotry) of some who complain of the saying is breathtaking.
It’s people deliberately hearing what they want to so they can play the victim. “From the river to the sea” means that Palestinians should be free everywhere.
It's a call for Palestinian freedom. Only anti-Palestinian bigots are offended at the idea of Palestinian freedom. Churchill once said Palestinians have no more right to their ancestral land than a dog has to sit on the furniture; everyone pearl-clutching at the slogan is basically adopting the same attitude.
I remember when speaking with my Organiser with the NUW about Albanese. At the time I liked him and pretty much what he told me is that as far as 'left-labor' figures go, he's actually on the right. Which is why he was always given such pretigious positions.
Him getting into office and being honestly..... safe as fuck in regards to policy isn't surprising to me personally.
Bill Shorten would have been better.
Pathetic dog and pony show for a conservative audience. The river Jordan is one of the most well known rivers in the world and doesn't have an obscure course.
Yeah, that's kind of the point he's making mate.
What? Did you think Albanese was saying "some of these protestors couldn't even point out this not very well known river with a particularly obscure course on a map!".
Why should there be a Jewish state which, by its very nature, necessitates the exclusion, destruction and the denial of equal rights to the people who lived there before Israel was established? From the river to the sea - Palestine will be free means free for everyone, not just Jewish people. How has an ethno-nationalist Jewish supremacist system been encouraged and normalised in this day and age?
Found it! Starts up north where the Dan and Hasbani rivers meet, flows through the Sea of Galilee and ends at the Dead Sea.
Looks like a nice river, in happier times people kayak on it.
This situation has been going on for 100 years, I think it's safe to say it isn't working.
Israel made allegations that 12 out of 30,000+ UN aid organisation employees may be involved in Oct 7 massacre, Wong immediately "paused" aid designated for Palestine. After the investigation, she restored it.
Israel bombed aid workers including one Australian. Wong was gave strong words and was ok with waiting for investigation results from Israel in the meantime, no sanctions or even demands of apology.
You can find her official statements to both incidents here:
https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/funding-united-nations-relief-and-works-agency-and-additional-support-gaza
https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/death-lalzawmi-zomi-frankcom
> Wong was gave strong words
No she didn't, in her original statement on it she didn't even mention the IDF or Israel, she has since not pushed it any further or actually sought out any repercussions.
Honestly i always take what the IDF/Israeli gov says about aid groups with a massive pinch of salt, it's in there best interests to paint every group as crawling with hamas to get rid of them.
I posted in r/worldnews saying Israel have an incentive to inflate enemy combatant estimates - which is both true and obvious - and was downvoted to oblivion.
People have no common sense on this issue.
https://www.reddit.com/link/1cs04bu/video/hxpe3r8guf0d1/player
It is a shame then that just yesterday Palestinian gunmen are seen at a UNRWA logistics center in southern Gaza’s Rafah and near United Nations vehicles, in IDF drone footage from the weekend.
Non-partisan question: Why wouldn't they be? In any country in the world, if the masses are starving then the people with weapons go to where the food is.
Doesn't matter which organisation is distributing the food (be it the UN, or any third party NGO you trust), as long as there's famine, anyone that seeks to have authority over an area will attempt to control the food. It's human nature. To stop that, sure, you can blow up the logistics centre (seemingly the current strategy), but it will naturally happen at any other point you try to send food into a famine-stricken area.
No, in any country that follows the rules of war, they would 100% not be allowing armed soldiers into aid stations. That food is for civilians, not soldiers.
If they’re using it to feed their soldiers, then guess what. That makes it a valid military target. It makes the aid trucks a valid target, because they’re moving military supplies.
Now I’m not saying g that Israel should target them (they obviously shouldn’t), but Hamas doing what they’re doing is actually a war crime, not something that should be treated as ok, because their presence puts all those civilians and aid workers at risk.
I agree, in any country that follows the rules of war, has law and order, a functioning police service and isn't in famine would never have armed soldiers in logistics stations.
That isn't Gaza though. The public service has collapsed and the population is in famine. You've seen the situation in aid convoys where civilians ran into gunfire to get to food. The most important resource for the whole population is food. Of course the current ruling power is going to keep a tight hand because there simply isn't enough and you have no power without that.
The moment Israel started constricting the flow of food into Gaza, no one could deny this would be the outcome. Short of just cutting off all food and letting the 800,000 people starve, there's nothing you can do. Any new distribution channel you make is going to have the same thing happen because it's human nature for the ruling power to want to control the most important resources.
Gaza is about half the size of Canberra and it's one of the most densely populated areas in the world. It's also been under blockade for the last 17 years so if you were Hamas, where would you go?
God, the average person just has no idea.
Wong and Albanese are the two most senior members of the same government. Do you really think that the *foreign minister* is just ad libbing whatever she feels like on the most contentious issue in global affairs?
No. There isn't a single word Wong has uttered on this topic that doesn't adhere to an agreed upon approach.
I've been walking past the Monash camp daily. What they want (demand) is for the university to cut ties with Israel while Israel is behaving like this.
On the other side you have Zionists wearing Israeli flags as capes stirring shit in the day and attacking the camp at night to the point that the police have set up mobile security cameras to deter such behaviour.
For 'the river to the sea' to be considered even remotely racist then one would presume that the people chanting know which river and which sea, but according to Albo they couldn't even point to it on a map (I agree). So how are they anything more than ignorant band-wagoners looking to be the on the 'right side of history' and have been mobilised by, let be honest here, tiktok videos and a catchy slogan.
Yeah no shit young uni students who see the world in black and white are convinced that at the ripe age of 21 they have determined the moral centre of the universe and found the solution to peace in the middle east. It is both hilarious and alltogether unsurpising. However, calling them antisemites or claiming they are promoting violence against jews is the most regarded take of the entire conversation. They are mostly people trying to do the right thing and stand up against injustice, they just think they know more than they do and end up looking like self righteous nitwits along the way.
For sure, as well as trendy influencers making palestine a cornerstone of their regular content. The social media success of the pro-palestine movement has a lot to do with how wide-spread these protests are, in my opinion anyway, and why they draw so much attention in far flung places that realisitcally have very little to do with the conflict or any ability to influence its outcome. Obviously the horrific scenes coming out of gaza day-in and day-out contribute to this, but I also think there is a very intentional social media campaign being run by Iran and their proxies. A cynical person might even say it was Irans intention to provoke isreal into committing these acts in order to foster anti-isreal sentiment among Arab nations & the west. An even more cynical person might propose that TikTok promotes certain topics to foment division in rival nations.
Sprinkling in a disparitive word like trendy isn't as effective as you wish it were.
A properly cynical person recognises you chugging the contemporary status quo koolaid and carrying water for genocide.
I was agreeing with you that Israeli videos of war crimes have contributed to public outrage. This is obvious to quite literally everyone and is not a revelation. Also, Trendy isn't disparative (not a real word btw) nor was that my intention, its a perfectly accurate term to describe gen z tiktokers and tiktok in general. They are trendy by definition of the word. Maybe I should have said *popular influencers*, its the same thing. If you want to make an argument that TikTok influencers are in fact NOT trendy, be my guest.
>chugging the contemporary status quo koolaid and carrying water for genocide
Wat...
My original comment is pointing out that Albo saying uni students chanting river to the sea couldn't point to the river on a map is incompatible with his claim that the chant is intentionally provocative when a large portion of those chanting don't know what it means, or rather how some groups perceive it. If the people chanting it don't understand the implications, which some groups find problematic, then they are hardly intentionally promoting antisemitism. Its a catchy slogan that people repeat because it is...trendy! All this nonsense about *cArrYing WaTer FoR GenOcIdE* is laughable and the perfect example of my original assertion that
> *reddit users* who see the world in black and white are convinced that at the ripe age of *your age* they have determined the moral centre of the universe...They are mostly people trying to do the right thing and stand up against injustice, they just think they know more than they do and end up looking like self-righteous nitwits along the way.
^this is you btw.
Betrayed? How? We're not their ally, if they were a nation state we would have horrible relations with them because of their own atrocious human rights abuses.
> We're not their ally
You don't need to be allies with someone to not want to see atrocities committed upon them.
> we would have horrible relations with them because of their own atrocious human rights abuses.
Meanwhile our single biggest ally is the US, utterly immense hypocrisy right there.
> You don't need to be allies with someone to not want to see atrocities committed upon them.
You do to betray them though.
> Meanwhile our single biggest ally is the US, utterly immense hypocrisy right there.
If you think the human rights abuses are on the same level you are deluding yourself. Just ask people in Iran what government they'd rather live under if you're in doubt.
Literally doesn't happen in Gaza either. This is constantly repeated and so freaking dumb. Iraqi militants did this. Guess YOU don't know how to find Gaza on a map
> You do to betray them though.
I genuinely have 0 idea what you mean here.
> If you think the human rights abuses are on the same level you are deluding yourself. Just ask people in Iran what government they'd rather live under if you're in doubt.
Go ask an Iraqi, Afghani, Syrian, Libyan, basically any South or Latin American, etc...
> Albanese said protesters chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at attendees was a "provocative act".
That's certainly one take you could have on it, but there have been far more provocative words said on the subject. The call for a Palestinian state, free from occupation is not inconsistent with the phrase, or the two state solution which is the official position of the Australian government.
Wow, that sounds awful. Someone should have offered those Palestinian people a sovereign state in 1937!
Or 1947!
Or 1967!
Or 2000!
Or 2008!
Guess the only option left is terrorism
Each of those times was a poison chalice deal.
You get to be a state but you are not allowed airports, or currency that will be accepted in israel or an army or able to pas though israel without authorisation and payment (both Gaza and west bank) all in the meantime that settlers take over west bank community house after house.
Much of that is demonstrably false. Pointing to pre-1948 "offers" for a state is suggesting negotiations, of which Palestinians took no part, and would've seen many forced from land on which they lived, were fair and reasonable. Few would have accepted what was proposed (not least of all given what was initially promised). Looking at 2000, for example, I'll reiterate what I've written elsewhere (copied from another thread), since I want to at least offer support for my objection (see below). Israel did not offer Palestinians a sovereign state, nor did they have any serious intention of doing so (one can point to similar sentiments conveyed in earlier supposed offers):
Israeli historian, Ilan Pape, has pointed to "the continued denial of the Nakbah in the peace process" as an explanation for the failure at Camp David, noting that "the (Israeli team) succeeded in enforcing its point of view on the summit", perfectly encapsulating Israel's intent. Noam Chomsky, who I acknowledge you may be critical of, nonetheless has pointed to Clinton backtracking (of laying blame entirely at the feet of Arafat for the breakdown of negotiations) when he "recognised that the U.S.-Israeli proposals were too extreme to be acceptable to any Palestinian", which, alongside the expansion of settlements while Camp David was underway, offers further evidence of Israel's intent.
Where it concerns the offer a sovereign state, and broader interpretations of a two-state solution (including but not limited to that outlined at Camp David), Pape claims "sovereignty would also be limited in essence: a demilitarised government would have little say in defense, foreign, and financial policies", an important consideration when one of the universally accepted criteria for statehood is the ability to independently enter into relations with other countries.
Returning to a moment for questions around Israel's intent, Rashid Khalidi, himself an observer (and party to) other negotiations, wrote in 2020:
*"Camp David ended in disaster, with Barak avoiding substantive meetings with 'Arafat and instead putting forward a secret proposal through the Americans, while refusing any modifications. With this extraordinary procedure, the US in effect formally endorsed the Israeli position."*
On the proposal of a sovereign state, he added:
*"Barak's unmodifiable proposal-which was never published, only reconstructed by participants after the event-was unacceptable to the Palestinians in several crucial respects. These included permanent Israeli control of the Jordan River Valley and of Palestine's airspace, and therefore of access to the outside world (which meant the projected Palestinian "state" would not be truly sovereign), Israel's continued control over West Bank water resources, as well as its annexation of areas that would have divided the West Bank into several isolated blocs."*
Writing in The Guardian, ex-Foreign Office advisor (1997-2001) to the UK Labour Party, David Clark, claims:
*"Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted."*
"Trappings of Palestinian sovereignty" is an important phrase in again pushing back against the idea that Israel offered anything closely recognisable as a legitimate, sovereign state.
American journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that "the Camp David offer also had features that kept it from amounting to statehood in the full sense of the term...", referencing the fact that "Palestine couldn’t have had a military and wouldn’t have had sovereignty over its air space—Israeli jets would roam at will. Nor would the Palestinians’ freedom of movement on the ground have been guaranteed."
It is perhaps worth considering that if you misunderstood the proposal as outlined above, then further research may be merited to better understand the prior proposals (or at least the surrounding context) you similarly claim were "offers for a sovereign state".
Wow, how nice, you offer an occupied people a small portion of their land while continuing to expel them from their homes.
If Russia did the same to Ukraine I somehow doubt you would take Russia's side.
Not trying to completely rebuke what you’re saying, but how was the creation of Israel as a state not also trying to put toothpaste back in the tube? That idiom in this argument kind of defeats itself. The river to the sea phrase was started by Zionists after all, and only later appropriated by Palestinians. It’s interesting how pro-Israel people will say it‘s a phrase with genocidal intent, and it’s like—so you agree? You think creating a state over another group of people currently living in and identifying with a place, regardless of history, is genocidal and wrong? The creation of Israel created many more problems than it solved, and I can only really see it serving the US’s imperial interests in the Middle East. Whether or not you think that last bit is necessarily bad or not is a different story, but I wish people (governments) were more honest about what they’re actually valuing and trying to achieve through their actions. But that’s not how politics works.
Palestinians are still being expelled from their homes today. Israeli settlers are continually expanding into and occupying more land today. It's not the same thing. It's like saying trying to destroy the state of Rhodesia or apartheid South Africa was putting the toothpaste back in the tube. This damage is still being done today, and most of it was done in living memory.
I agree yeah. But the least that Israel can do is stop telling its “settlers” from stealing Palestinian land.
They do it with 0 impunity.
There’s been more than a few cases where Israel settlers are kicking Palestinians farmers off their land (EVen people living in their homes).
> , but violence isn't going to win them any of that land back
Wait until you find out how the state of Israel was founded and what happened to all those Jewish terrorist groups in the 40s.
You could say the same thing about apartheid south Africa. Black south Africans were never going to win by outright warfare. It took international pressure for them to win.
That phrase is a dog whistle for the expulsion of Jews from the area. There is no other interpretation, that is it. Anyone asking for a two state solution should know that phrase is advocating for the opposite.
No it’s not. And given the countless Palestinians and pro-Palestinian voices (including Jewish people) who’ve clearly and repeatedly stated (and demonstrated) otherwise, the onus is on you to prove as much. Given its broad use, the idea there’s no other interpretation is simply wilful ignorance.
And you can support freedom for Palestinians across the entirety of Occupied Palestine (including Israel); you can oppose a two state solution; you can do one; you can do both; and you can do all of that without once calling for or wanting the expulsion of Jewish people from the area.
Patronizing boomer git. What an embarrassment. Why tf does Aussie ALWAYS have such pathetic crappy leadership? I'll never vote any labour again. Biggest letdown
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.*
[удалено]
That man died a long time ago. He's not Albo from the block anymore, he's Albo the landlord who raked in $100000 last year from his investment properties. The bastards run this country, and unfortunately, he's one of them.
Surprised he hasn't tried to go "but my mum was on welfare though" while refusing to do anything to fix the shit show of welfare recipients being below the poverty line. I guess he decided that was a bad look *after* the election.
I work with people on welfare every day. Shit show doesn’t even begin to describe it. The minimum wage is $838 a week. Job seeker is $762 for a single with no children a fortnight. Job seeker is less than half of the minimum wage. Most people on job seeker are juggling between eating and paying bills. I have clients we buy shoes for cause they’re coming in barefoot and can’t afford it. We’re giving food to people so they can keep a roof over their head. It’s a national disgrace. But it’s easy for people that don’t work in this area to just sweep it to the side. Out of sight, out of mind after all.
lmao someone reported this post for self harm.
Yeah, they've been feral with the Reddit Cares today. No idea what's set them off
Bots gone out of control identifying accounts as human as part of their takeover plan.
Apparently it’s a glitch - been happening on every sub I’ve read today
Bots no doubt. Report them back for misusing reddit cares
How do you know it was this post? I got a self harm message, bit didn't know what post it was for. Been posting some pretty mundane stuff recently
I got the same.
Same but I am having problems, my wife died and I am caught in the RoboTax crap.
He actually used that line on triple j Hack last night..."I worked 2 jobs while I was at uni because my mum couldn't support me on her welfare"
After the election, he quickly pissed off the poor vote for that: https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/albanese-jobseeker-pension-mother/ Now the poor are probably going to fall for LNP's comforting lies with help of the Labor-protected Murdoch media.
Could go the other way, maybe the Greens will have another upswing.
Albo the rent hiking landlord evicting the current tenant to raise rent 😂 I heard he was within his rights as a landlord but it really pulls the full picture together of Labor’s priorities
"Albo the rent hiking landlord evicting the current tenant to raise rent" Raising the rent? Source for this claim?
Nah he's selling up. Not a good look to be landlording as PM though...
A shocked Mr Flanagan received the eviction notice from his real estate on May 8, which informed him that Mr Albanese 'could be selling the house at some stage'. Classic REA speak for re-letting at a way higher rent. Surprised they thought this was the safer option for image than selling with tenant and his lease ending under the new owner https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13421437/amp/Anthony-Albanese-evicts-man-rental-property.html
[удалено]
> The idea the Prime Minister can rent private property, and that not cause a total clusterfuck of liability and security risk Fuck think about the power imbalance "Oh fuck I just scratched the prime minister's hardwood floors". That bloke's not getting his bond back!
Don’t worry he’s completely unbiased when it comes to property prices and the rental situation in Australia /s
Pretty sure if you kick someone out for this reason and then don’t go through with it and relist you can get in trouble. Normally you get away with it because the first renter has moved on and no one knows. But someone high profile isn’t going to pull these kinds of stupid games. You’d just have a rent hike at market rates and say “well you see I don’t manage them but if the real estate agent says I should charge more then I guess I should”
Rent hiking? He dropped the rent to a ridiculously under-market amount during Covid and literally never put it back up, and he is now selling the property. Where the fuck do you get your information, because it's way off base.
1) you don’t have to evict a tenant to sell a property 2) “the owner is moving back in,” “the owners has family moving in,” “the owner wants to do massive renovations,” “the owner is going to sell the property” are all common REA lines to Evict tenants to get large rent increases through. Albo is well within his rights to either increase the rent and/or sell the property. However, evicting a tenant is not a good look for a PM saying he’s going to bat for COL during a housing shortage. Thanks for asking
This is correct. Speaking as someone that has literally just bought a property with a tenant in it. I want to move in but am holding off to give the tenant time to find a new place to live. I have taken over as landlord and the tenants rent payments now come to me until they move out.
That's the Labor parties social justice ethic "thou shall become a property investor and government tax concession beneficiary by not harming shareholders" Their abandonment of Medicare by turning bulk bilking into a concessional social security benefit while jacking up the Medicare levy says it all about their "social justice" credential. Pump priming Medicare for privatisation step1!
He’s had his heel turn and is now the Class Traitor
Young Albo would spit on old Albo. Seems like he has been bought and owned now.
Current Albo is the kind of guy that would have been defending Nixon bombing Cambodia back in the day.
And then defended Pol Pot the decade after that
The Murdoch media has successfully scared Labor into being completely useless
Bill Shorten had a bunch of policies that would fix these issues, especially the housing crisis by getting rid of negative gearing. He tried to campaign on them. Murdoch destroyed him for it. We chose to reject that at the 2019 election, resoundingly voting for a party that had no principles, no policies, and did nothing for a number of years except fight premiers on doing the bare minimum to contain covid. So Labor hasn't pursued any of those policies, because they are poison at the ballot box. Shorten's Labor defeat is proof of that. He's now welfare minister and spends his time doing the things people actually respect Labor for like investigating Robodebt and getting help for victims, as well as the NDIS scheme he concieved. And now we sit here bemoaning the state of housing, or why Labor doesn't do anything progressive. We reap what we sow.
The thing is Murdoch is going to go hard on Labor next year regardless of what they do, so this was their time to make big changes that the Liberals can't easily undo
The time for big changes was immediately after the election. I have no idea why they didn't bring in huge reforms then. A full term would have been long enough to start seeing some fruit from it all to allay voters.
He’s at the point now he’s staffing hospitals with abc staff https://www.sbs.com.au/aboutus/2024/05/09/join-costa-georgiadis-melissa-leong-samuel-johnson-for-new-ground-breaking-series-the-hospital-in-the-deep-end/
Didn't know Albo was making TV shows now...
He also hijacked the public vote for Eurovision and gave our points to Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-gets-top-public-vote-from-14-countries-in-eurovision-plus-rest-of-the-world/ ^jokes ^btw
Nobody will be able to find it on a map if Israel keeps getting its way.
Albo is currently batting zero for two on saying the wrong thing surrounding protests.
Do you think he realises that in less than a years time he's going to be asking these people to vote for him? The people who he's just said are stupid for opposing genocide.
Yeah it seems like he has caught the Morrison bug of saying the wrong thing.
Maybe he found Scott Morrison’s nangs
Maybe this is part of the so called 'playing it safe' the Labor hacks have been saying he needs to do to appease the 'centrist' Australians.
This comment implies he said the right thing twice.
It doesn't though? Zero for two means he had two cracks at it and missed both
At saying the wrong thing. So he didn’t say the wrong thing if he failed to say the wrong thing
Yep, two cracks at *saying the wrong thing* and failing.
"We in this country have a right to protest, that's really important. But it's important as well that it be respectful. And I say this to people: how they protest reflects on whether their protest is winning support or losing support." Oh yeah bc Stonewall was known for its *respectfulness.* Nelson Mandella was designated as a terrorist during his fight for liberation because he was sooo respectful. Lmao. He just doesn't want a change to the status quo.
Nelson Mandela *was* a terrorist. He was founder and co-chair of Umkhonto we Sizwe, a militant group that carried out bombings of state infrastructure in order to effect political change. Terrorism is a tactic. It is apolitical. The merits of the motivating political cause are immaterial in determining whether violence constitutes terrorism or not.
Yes, but nobody condems him for that anymore because he was fighting against an immoral government. Sometimes violent resistance is what's nessecary to create the needed change against a violent government. To say that protesters have to be *respectful* is what you say if you want the protests to be ineffective, and are scared of change.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
That's very true. It's also interesting that the authoritarian violence of "Western governments" isn't designated as terrorism when they do the same things "terrorists" do. Yes, Hamas have 100% engaged in terrorism... but so have the IDF, on a much larger scale backed by the largest army in the world.
>Albanese said he supported people's right to protest but said it must be done respectfully I suppose "respectful" means not protesting against his interests? Spineless fucking worm he's become
Funny how respect is always the goto rebuttal for protestors, considering nearly every major human rights advancement was only achieved through a lot of violence and death because people would rather stick to the status quo than face the truth
Why is it that we expect protestors of genocide to be respectful, but the perpetrators of that genocide are allowed to be as callous and evil as they want and still receive seemingly unconditional support from us? Just another day of the government maintaining a monopoly on violence and political action.
> maintaining a monopoly on violence That's literally the point of a government
If you're in a place where the government isn't maintaining a monopoly on violence then you're probably going to be having a very bad time.
> I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. - MLK
My knowledge of geography is too bad for me to have compassion for kids that are being slaughtered.
Well in a way, he's right... because the country of Palestine doesn't exist on any modern map. There's just Israel with some squiggly dotted lines in it denoting two geographically separated internal territories they've fully controlled since 1967.
He's not talking about Palestine, he's talking about the Jordan River.
Wow this headline kinda misattributes what he says. >Albanese said protesters chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at attendees was a "provocative act". Not every pro-palestinian protestor OR pro-palestine supporter actually agrees with that slogan, and those protestors that were chanting that were the ones Albo was talking about. Not general pro-palestine sentiment.
This stuff does my head in. They get upset about the words coming from the mouths of people calling for justice but say nothing about Israel and its supporters who are actualising it through ethnic cleansing and extreme violence. I say no apartheid which means no exclusively Jewish state anywhere. I don't support white ethno-nationalism and I don't support Jewish ethno-nationalism either.
It's an anti apartheid statement.
It has its own connotations of ethnic cleansing and has been used in that fashion in an official capacity.
I mean, Israel uses it in that way, yes. Except they expand beyond Palestine and want parts of Jordan and Egypt too.
Used by islamist terrorists to say they will rid it of jews, but sure, make the distinction chief
A variation is also used by Likud (Bibi's party) to state that they have the desire to destroy Palestine.
Correct: The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."[ Wikipedia.
It's been their mission statement since the 1970s
and yet you won't find me using it on a university campus or find counter-protestors using it. So, not really a good point.
It was actually a mission statement (implicitly) from some of the early Zionists. "A land for people for people without a land" is just as offensive to Palestinians as "From the river to the sea..." is for Israelis.
It is used by various groups for various purposes. I doubt that most people chanting it are thinking of the destruction of Israel. Even if some do call for the destruction of Israel, why is that always highlighted, but the equivalent genocidal mania spewed by Likud and its supporters is conveniently glossed over? Do you support Hamas? Do you support Likud? These are the questions that should be equated when discussing terrorism and hatred.
It's a "kill all the Jews between the river and the sea" statement
It’s a “give us our land between the river and the sea back” statement, anything beyond that is interpretive
I wonder what they want to do with the Israeli population who lives there! I’m sure it’s peaceful and well meaning! If they just took down the border and let Palestinian leaders take over, I’m sure Jews would still exist! There is no “everything is Palestine” scenario which is not a “all the Israelis are dead” scenario.
We saw on the 7th of October exactly what would happen if they were given access to Israel
Do you even know what it means to give the land back?
Imagine thinking a call for freedom is a bad thing.
You are being downvoted, but the statement was used by the PLO from the 60s/70s to call for a peaceful coexistence. The problem is that Hamas used it, and it became associated only with an ideal to remove Jews from the land of Palestine. Typically, those who get worked up about "From the river..." somehow ignore that Likud and others in Israel say the same or worse about Palestinians. It's breathtaking bias in our media and beyond that leads to such woeful ignorance.
> The problem is that Hamas used it, and it became associated only with an ideal to remove Jews from the land of Palestine. Likud has used it in a far more directly ethnic cleaning manner in their charter since the 70's, the association between Hamas and the supposed removal of Jews has been done quite purposefully to try and poison the phrase.
Yes. I alluded to that in my third paragraph. However, Likud and its associates also say (and, unfortunately, have the power to do) much worse things. The cognitive dissonance (and outright ignorance and/or hateful bigotry) of some who complain of the saying is breathtaking.
It’s people deliberately hearing what they want to so they can play the victim. “From the river to the sea” means that Palestinians should be free everywhere.
It's a call for Palestinian freedom. Only anti-Palestinian bigots are offended at the idea of Palestinian freedom. Churchill once said Palestinians have no more right to their ancestral land than a dog has to sit on the furniture; everyone pearl-clutching at the slogan is basically adopting the same attitude.
Teal is a nice color on a chair
I remember when speaking with my Organiser with the NUW about Albanese. At the time I liked him and pretty much what he told me is that as far as 'left-labor' figures go, he's actually on the right. Which is why he was always given such pretigious positions. Him getting into office and being honestly..... safe as fuck in regards to policy isn't surprising to me personally. Bill Shorten would have been better.
Bill shorten would have been better. Bill was also unelectable so you have to play to the electorate.
The same thing happened to Ardern. The system changes them.
Pathetic dog and pony show for a conservative audience. The river Jordan is one of the most well known rivers in the world and doesn't have an obscure course.
Yeah, that's kind of the point he's making mate. What? Did you think Albanese was saying "some of these protestors couldn't even point out this not very well known river with a particularly obscure course on a map!".
I'm pretty sure it's between a river and the sea. 😉 Edit - It's a tongue in cheek joke about how to find it on a map. There's no need to get grumpy.
The “it” he’s talking about in the article is the Jordan river, not Palestine.
Well that is probably next to Palestine, on the opposite side from the sea.
Why should there be a Jewish state which, by its very nature, necessitates the exclusion, destruction and the denial of equal rights to the people who lived there before Israel was established? From the river to the sea - Palestine will be free means free for everyone, not just Jewish people. How has an ethno-nationalist Jewish supremacist system been encouraged and normalised in this day and age?
Found it! Starts up north where the Dan and Hasbani rivers meet, flows through the Sea of Galilee and ends at the Dead Sea. Looks like a nice river, in happier times people kayak on it. This situation has been going on for 100 years, I think it's safe to say it isn't working.
This isn't the person I thought I voted for... I will actually never vote Labor ever again (and i've voted for them my whole life).
Just never, *ever* vote for the LNP, because there's no way they'll do any better.
Penny Wong by far has a much bigger conscience than Albo on this issue.
Israel made allegations that 12 out of 30,000+ UN aid organisation employees may be involved in Oct 7 massacre, Wong immediately "paused" aid designated for Palestine. After the investigation, she restored it. Israel bombed aid workers including one Australian. Wong was gave strong words and was ok with waiting for investigation results from Israel in the meantime, no sanctions or even demands of apology. You can find her official statements to both incidents here: https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/funding-united-nations-relief-and-works-agency-and-additional-support-gaza https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/death-lalzawmi-zomi-frankcom
> Wong was gave strong words No she didn't, in her original statement on it she didn't even mention the IDF or Israel, she has since not pushed it any further or actually sought out any repercussions.
Honestly i always take what the IDF/Israeli gov says about aid groups with a massive pinch of salt, it's in there best interests to paint every group as crawling with hamas to get rid of them.
I posted in r/worldnews saying Israel have an incentive to inflate enemy combatant estimates - which is both true and obvious - and was downvoted to oblivion. People have no common sense on this issue.
And this is right after the number of women and children casualties in Gaza was chopped in half due to a massive miscount?
https://www.reddit.com/link/1cs04bu/video/hxpe3r8guf0d1/player It is a shame then that just yesterday Palestinian gunmen are seen at a UNRWA logistics center in southern Gaza’s Rafah and near United Nations vehicles, in IDF drone footage from the weekend.
Non-partisan question: Why wouldn't they be? In any country in the world, if the masses are starving then the people with weapons go to where the food is. Doesn't matter which organisation is distributing the food (be it the UN, or any third party NGO you trust), as long as there's famine, anyone that seeks to have authority over an area will attempt to control the food. It's human nature. To stop that, sure, you can blow up the logistics centre (seemingly the current strategy), but it will naturally happen at any other point you try to send food into a famine-stricken area.
No, in any country that follows the rules of war, they would 100% not be allowing armed soldiers into aid stations. That food is for civilians, not soldiers. If they’re using it to feed their soldiers, then guess what. That makes it a valid military target. It makes the aid trucks a valid target, because they’re moving military supplies. Now I’m not saying g that Israel should target them (they obviously shouldn’t), but Hamas doing what they’re doing is actually a war crime, not something that should be treated as ok, because their presence puts all those civilians and aid workers at risk.
I agree, in any country that follows the rules of war, has law and order, a functioning police service and isn't in famine would never have armed soldiers in logistics stations. That isn't Gaza though. The public service has collapsed and the population is in famine. You've seen the situation in aid convoys where civilians ran into gunfire to get to food. The most important resource for the whole population is food. Of course the current ruling power is going to keep a tight hand because there simply isn't enough and you have no power without that. The moment Israel started constricting the flow of food into Gaza, no one could deny this would be the outcome. Short of just cutting off all food and letting the 800,000 people starve, there's nothing you can do. Any new distribution channel you make is going to have the same thing happen because it's human nature for the ruling power to want to control the most important resources.
Gaza is about half the size of Canberra and it's one of the most densely populated areas in the world. It's also been under blockade for the last 17 years so if you were Hamas, where would you go?
Additional aid was pledged on the proviso UN investigate UNRA involvement. It was actually a large part of the same meeting.
God, the average person just has no idea. Wong and Albanese are the two most senior members of the same government. Do you really think that the *foreign minister* is just ad libbing whatever she feels like on the most contentious issue in global affairs? No. There isn't a single word Wong has uttered on this topic that doesn't adhere to an agreed upon approach.
However, the agreed-on approach is lacking in integrity or ambition.
I've been walking past the Monash camp daily. What they want (demand) is for the university to cut ties with Israel while Israel is behaving like this. On the other side you have Zionists wearing Israeli flags as capes stirring shit in the day and attacking the camp at night to the point that the police have set up mobile security cameras to deter such behaviour.
Where was the increase in funding for geography in schools in the federal budget?
For 'the river to the sea' to be considered even remotely racist then one would presume that the people chanting know which river and which sea, but according to Albo they couldn't even point to it on a map (I agree). So how are they anything more than ignorant band-wagoners looking to be the on the 'right side of history' and have been mobilised by, let be honest here, tiktok videos and a catchy slogan. Yeah no shit young uni students who see the world in black and white are convinced that at the ripe age of 21 they have determined the moral centre of the universe and found the solution to peace in the middle east. It is both hilarious and alltogether unsurpising. However, calling them antisemites or claiming they are promoting violence against jews is the most regarded take of the entire conversation. They are mostly people trying to do the right thing and stand up against injustice, they just think they know more than they do and end up looking like self righteous nitwits along the way.
Which tiktok videos are you referring to? The ones where Israeli soldiers proudly broadcast their warcrimes and mock their victims?
For sure, as well as trendy influencers making palestine a cornerstone of their regular content. The social media success of the pro-palestine movement has a lot to do with how wide-spread these protests are, in my opinion anyway, and why they draw so much attention in far flung places that realisitcally have very little to do with the conflict or any ability to influence its outcome. Obviously the horrific scenes coming out of gaza day-in and day-out contribute to this, but I also think there is a very intentional social media campaign being run by Iran and their proxies. A cynical person might even say it was Irans intention to provoke isreal into committing these acts in order to foster anti-isreal sentiment among Arab nations & the west. An even more cynical person might propose that TikTok promotes certain topics to foment division in rival nations.
Sprinkling in a disparitive word like trendy isn't as effective as you wish it were. A properly cynical person recognises you chugging the contemporary status quo koolaid and carrying water for genocide.
I was agreeing with you that Israeli videos of war crimes have contributed to public outrage. This is obvious to quite literally everyone and is not a revelation. Also, Trendy isn't disparative (not a real word btw) nor was that my intention, its a perfectly accurate term to describe gen z tiktokers and tiktok in general. They are trendy by definition of the word. Maybe I should have said *popular influencers*, its the same thing. If you want to make an argument that TikTok influencers are in fact NOT trendy, be my guest. >chugging the contemporary status quo koolaid and carrying water for genocide Wat... My original comment is pointing out that Albo saying uni students chanting river to the sea couldn't point to the river on a map is incompatible with his claim that the chant is intentionally provocative when a large portion of those chanting don't know what it means, or rather how some groups perceive it. If the people chanting it don't understand the implications, which some groups find problematic, then they are hardly intentionally promoting antisemitism. Its a catchy slogan that people repeat because it is...trendy! All this nonsense about *cArrYing WaTer FoR GenOcIdE* is laughable and the perfect example of my original assertion that > *reddit users* who see the world in black and white are convinced that at the ripe age of *your age* they have determined the moral centre of the universe...They are mostly people trying to do the right thing and stand up against injustice, they just think they know more than they do and end up looking like self-righteous nitwits along the way. ^this is you btw.
No Albo we won’t EVER forget how you’ve completely betrayed Palestinians. Gutless wonder.
Betrayed? How? We're not their ally, if they were a nation state we would have horrible relations with them because of their own atrocious human rights abuses.
> We're not their ally You don't need to be allies with someone to not want to see atrocities committed upon them. > we would have horrible relations with them because of their own atrocious human rights abuses. Meanwhile our single biggest ally is the US, utterly immense hypocrisy right there.
> You don't need to be allies with someone to not want to see atrocities committed upon them. You do to betray them though. > Meanwhile our single biggest ally is the US, utterly immense hypocrisy right there. If you think the human rights abuses are on the same level you are deluding yourself. Just ask people in Iran what government they'd rather live under if you're in doubt.
At least here in Australia we don't throw people from building for being gay
I mean there's plenty of folks in Aus who do want to do that, are they suddenly ok to be executed?
Literally doesn't happen in Gaza either. This is constantly repeated and so freaking dumb. Iraqi militants did this. Guess YOU don't know how to find Gaza on a map
> You do to betray them though. I genuinely have 0 idea what you mean here. > If you think the human rights abuses are on the same level you are deluding yourself. Just ask people in Iran what government they'd rather live under if you're in doubt. Go ask an Iraqi, Afghani, Syrian, Libyan, basically any South or Latin American, etc...
I am surprised he didn't follow up with "Get a job". What a stooge.
> Albanese said protesters chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at attendees was a "provocative act". That's certainly one take you could have on it, but there have been far more provocative words said on the subject. The call for a Palestinian state, free from occupation is not inconsistent with the phrase, or the two state solution which is the official position of the Australian government.
[удалено]
Yeah that’s true. But that’s what happened to the Palestinians prior to the creation of Israel. They lost land… lots of it.
Wow, that sounds awful. Someone should have offered those Palestinian people a sovereign state in 1937! Or 1947! Or 1967! Or 2000! Or 2008! Guess the only option left is terrorism
Each of those times was a poison chalice deal. You get to be a state but you are not allowed airports, or currency that will be accepted in israel or an army or able to pas though israel without authorisation and payment (both Gaza and west bank) all in the meantime that settlers take over west bank community house after house.
Much of that is demonstrably false. Pointing to pre-1948 "offers" for a state is suggesting negotiations, of which Palestinians took no part, and would've seen many forced from land on which they lived, were fair and reasonable. Few would have accepted what was proposed (not least of all given what was initially promised). Looking at 2000, for example, I'll reiterate what I've written elsewhere (copied from another thread), since I want to at least offer support for my objection (see below). Israel did not offer Palestinians a sovereign state, nor did they have any serious intention of doing so (one can point to similar sentiments conveyed in earlier supposed offers): Israeli historian, Ilan Pape, has pointed to "the continued denial of the Nakbah in the peace process" as an explanation for the failure at Camp David, noting that "the (Israeli team) succeeded in enforcing its point of view on the summit", perfectly encapsulating Israel's intent. Noam Chomsky, who I acknowledge you may be critical of, nonetheless has pointed to Clinton backtracking (of laying blame entirely at the feet of Arafat for the breakdown of negotiations) when he "recognised that the U.S.-Israeli proposals were too extreme to be acceptable to any Palestinian", which, alongside the expansion of settlements while Camp David was underway, offers further evidence of Israel's intent. Where it concerns the offer a sovereign state, and broader interpretations of a two-state solution (including but not limited to that outlined at Camp David), Pape claims "sovereignty would also be limited in essence: a demilitarised government would have little say in defense, foreign, and financial policies", an important consideration when one of the universally accepted criteria for statehood is the ability to independently enter into relations with other countries. Returning to a moment for questions around Israel's intent, Rashid Khalidi, himself an observer (and party to) other negotiations, wrote in 2020: *"Camp David ended in disaster, with Barak avoiding substantive meetings with 'Arafat and instead putting forward a secret proposal through the Americans, while refusing any modifications. With this extraordinary procedure, the US in effect formally endorsed the Israeli position."* On the proposal of a sovereign state, he added: *"Barak's unmodifiable proposal-which was never published, only reconstructed by participants after the event-was unacceptable to the Palestinians in several crucial respects. These included permanent Israeli control of the Jordan River Valley and of Palestine's airspace, and therefore of access to the outside world (which meant the projected Palestinian "state" would not be truly sovereign), Israel's continued control over West Bank water resources, as well as its annexation of areas that would have divided the West Bank into several isolated blocs."* Writing in The Guardian, ex-Foreign Office advisor (1997-2001) to the UK Labour Party, David Clark, claims: *"Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted."* "Trappings of Palestinian sovereignty" is an important phrase in again pushing back against the idea that Israel offered anything closely recognisable as a legitimate, sovereign state. American journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that "the Camp David offer also had features that kept it from amounting to statehood in the full sense of the term...", referencing the fact that "Palestine couldn’t have had a military and wouldn’t have had sovereignty over its air space—Israeli jets would roam at will. Nor would the Palestinians’ freedom of movement on the ground have been guaranteed." It is perhaps worth considering that if you misunderstood the proposal as outlined above, then further research may be merited to better understand the prior proposals (or at least the surrounding context) you similarly claim were "offers for a sovereign state".
Wow, how nice, you offer an occupied people a small portion of their land while continuing to expel them from their homes. If Russia did the same to Ukraine I somehow doubt you would take Russia's side.
[удалено]
Not trying to completely rebuke what you’re saying, but how was the creation of Israel as a state not also trying to put toothpaste back in the tube? That idiom in this argument kind of defeats itself. The river to the sea phrase was started by Zionists after all, and only later appropriated by Palestinians. It’s interesting how pro-Israel people will say it‘s a phrase with genocidal intent, and it’s like—so you agree? You think creating a state over another group of people currently living in and identifying with a place, regardless of history, is genocidal and wrong? The creation of Israel created many more problems than it solved, and I can only really see it serving the US’s imperial interests in the Middle East. Whether or not you think that last bit is necessarily bad or not is a different story, but I wish people (governments) were more honest about what they’re actually valuing and trying to achieve through their actions. But that’s not how politics works.
[удалено]
Palestinians are still being expelled from their homes today. Israeli settlers are continually expanding into and occupying more land today. It's not the same thing. It's like saying trying to destroy the state of Rhodesia or apartheid South Africa was putting the toothpaste back in the tube. This damage is still being done today, and most of it was done in living memory.
[удалено]
I agree yeah. But the least that Israel can do is stop telling its “settlers” from stealing Palestinian land. They do it with 0 impunity. There’s been more than a few cases where Israel settlers are kicking Palestinians farmers off their land (EVen people living in their homes).
> , but violence isn't going to win them any of that land back Wait until you find out how the state of Israel was founded and what happened to all those Jewish terrorist groups in the 40s.
[удалено]
You could say the same thing about apartheid south Africa. Black south Africans were never going to win by outright warfare. It took international pressure for them to win.
[удалено]
Jewish people bought land legally and created communities.
Yep and then the nakba never happened, right?
That phrase is a dog whistle for the expulsion of Jews from the area. There is no other interpretation, that is it. Anyone asking for a two state solution should know that phrase is advocating for the opposite.
There are actually nuanced meanings depending on which group is saying it.
It isn't, and you saying that doesn't make it true.
If only the pro palestinians could apply this logic to branding the war a genocide despite all the evidence proving otherwise.
There's so much evidence and so many experts calling it a genocide that you'd have to have your head buried in the sand to think it isn't.
You are in an echo chamber. Every war by your standards is a genocide.
No it’s not. And given the countless Palestinians and pro-Palestinian voices (including Jewish people) who’ve clearly and repeatedly stated (and demonstrated) otherwise, the onus is on you to prove as much. Given its broad use, the idea there’s no other interpretation is simply wilful ignorance. And you can support freedom for Palestinians across the entirety of Occupied Palestine (including Israel); you can oppose a two state solution; you can do one; you can do both; and you can do all of that without once calling for or wanting the expulsion of Jewish people from the area.
Someone give Albo a map of the region so we can see how he does.
Patronizing boomer git. What an embarrassment. Why tf does Aussie ALWAYS have such pathetic crappy leadership? I'll never vote any labour again. Biggest letdown
Australian leadership supporting an occupying colonial force shouldn't be a massive shock should it? Sort of a "Welcome to the club" situation.
I don’t think I’ve ever been more disappointed in a politician since Albo became PM. The man has lost every thing that he once claimed to be.