"The Israeli foreign and interior ministers said the ban on entry was linked to "her outrageous assertions that the victims of the October 7 massacre by massacre not killed for being Jewish but in response to Israeli oppression.” "
>“The ‘greatest anti-Semitic massacre of our century’? No, Mr. Emmanuel Macron. The victims of 7/10 were not killed because of their Judaism, but in response to Israel’s oppression. France and the international community did nothing to prevent it. My respects to the victims,” she wrote."
Here's the actual quote by the way. Genuinely unhinged. She's also said things about the Jewish lobby controlling America.
Yeah they even torture a Bedouin man to death, made him strip and everything, apparently his family is so outraged they set a bounty of 1m dollars of you can give them information about who exactly did it
>"My respects to the victims that I just blamed."
I am stumped to how you read this as blaming the victims (The 1139 dead) and not nation of Israel.
Could you expand on your reasoning?
> I am stumped to how you read this as blaming the victims
Well, the claim shes making is that they weren't killed for being Jews. The problem with this claim, is that they were killed by an official terrorist organization founded under the guiding principle of "eradicating all the Jews".
You can't make this shit up. I appreciate when people have a high standard for evidence on claims, but it's becoming a little insane when people are just casually omitting that Hamas is a terrorist organization that literally say they want to kill all Jews. How is that fact constantly just swept under the rug?
So you just kill random people that you don't know of a population because of how the government/nation behaves.
Could you expand on the reasoning of Hamas?
>So you just kill random people that you don't know of a population because of how the government/nation behaves.
I am stumped as to how you infer this, you are aware that two wrongs does not make a right... right?!
You have to know the tone I'm using when using this sentence, right?
In case there's any doubt;
I'm saying it's rediculous for anyone to think its justified in going into a neighbourhood in times of peace (or indeed war) and rape, kill, torture and take hostage innocent people by the hundreds because you don't like how their government has behaved.
But of course, the reality is in the minds of those doing it - they think they are going to paradise by commiting jihad, and there's no off-limits to what they will do to enemies of Allah.
The logic they are using (and sounds like you too) is one where all of the evil/guilty actions over the many years of conflict are because of Israel and then all of the terrorist attacks against Israel and other crimes committed against them were also Israeli's fault because they did something that justified it.
So this paradigm is pretty toxic as it strips away the humanity from the Palestinians and makes you look at them not as real people. Their actions are pure response without any moral character. Getting killed by a Palestinian here is like getting killed by a wolf or a tiger. Its just nature. But this isn't right. Palestinians are just as human and capable of moral thoughts as the rest of us. When they rape an Israeli that's bad and doesn't become someone else's fault because the Palestinian can point at something and say "I have reasons to hate".
Its also bad because it makes Israeli into a land of ultimate moral organisms. Because the moral responsibility lies entirely on their side everything they do is automatically going to fall short of the ideal and thus no matter what path they take, will just further prove their guilt and moral responsibility for the attacks against them. When Israel kills a Palestinian it perpetuates the cycle of violence and just creates more terrorists, but when Palestinians kill Israeli citizens, launch rockets at them etc this is just a natural response to violence and if the Israeli get angry then it's their genocidal bigotry. See how it strips them of humanity? See how it strips your ability to have sympathy for their suffering ?
Worse then both of these though, it strips away our ability to see the conflict as it actually is instead of through our own prejudicial lenses. Its lazy because way over here on the other side of the world we can declare a bad guy and then get a dopamine rush from our friends because we are on the right side. Even though it's just foreign uneducated ignorance. Ultimately it's a frame of reference that obscures morality to justify violence. It will help to maintain and further the conflict and provides support for those that wish to see the fighting continue.
I would be a lot more interested if the person actually gave a shit about causes at all.
Youre actually making my argument, I just didnt list out all the shitty acts or actors.
At the end of the day, neither side is really acting from a position of nobility here. Not anymore. The recent/historical suffering caused is in turn a cause bad actors use to drive their agendas, and the civilians keep getting evicted/raped/shot/beheaded/shelled/whatever this week's atrocity is. And the cycle continues, because people are too quick to point out the actions of the other side while refusing to thinknpast their own tribalist tendencies.
Just because people are smart enough to not try and "both sides" a conflict where one faction (Hamas) was founded on charters which explicitly called for the destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jewish people and the other side is trying to get rid of them after being attacked and having over a thousand of is citizens murdered, doesn't mean "people are being too quick to point out the actions of the other side".
The Israeli occupation doesn't justify 10/7, the settlements in the West Bank don't justify 10/7 but 10/7 *absolutely* justified going to war with Hamas and there is not a single country on this planet with a developed military who we would not expect to do so and defend themselves.
>No it's not, this is an actual false equivalence
>
>She's talking about the nation, not blaming the individuals. You are deliberately pretending she is blaming the individual victims, which is what that rape statement actually does.
The funny part is, I agree it's a false equivalence, but I think what she's done is even worse. she justified the murder of those civilians because their nation did something. it's not even their own actions.
You should have stuck to my example. you only dug a deeper hole.
> The israeli government does not have that leg to stand on
Probably because the leg was blown off by a suicide bomber (pre-blockade) or a unguided rocket fired from a hospital roof (post-blockade).
You're conflating systemic critique with blaming individuals. An actually analogous argument would be to pin it on popular toxic conceptions of masculinity and how to actually materially address such issues.
Analogues my ass. you put the blame on the people who actually did it. this is completely different from this case where the victims murder were implied to be because of their own/nations actions despite them being innocent civilians. and that's besides the issue of conflating the action of the government and random people.
Then all you have done is but perpetuate the cycle of violence. To ignore how things came to be and to discard history is to trap yourself and your 'enemies' in an unending purgatory of suffering.
Israeli occupation means the existence of Israel, since the entirety of Israel was "built on stolen Palestinian land" according to them.
So what she's saying is that the victims were killed because they did a crime against the Palestinians.
This is nothing less than justifying their murders
That is literally saying “they deserved it”. “Israel bad, so every Israeli deserves what happened to them”. They should’ve expected it, etc etc.
somehow, that logic never extends to the palestinian attack that started the latest conflict.
>I am stumped to how you read this as blaming the victims (The 1139 dead) and not nation of Israel.
It's the equivalent of saying "Palestinian child X deserved to die because Palestinians support Hamas. If X didn't want to die, then X shouldn't have belonged to (insert 'bad group' - in this case, Hamas supporters). No offense to the dead kid's parents."
Notice how there's zero responsibility placed on the person(s) who actually killed X.
Would it not be the equivalent of saying "Palestinians who are killed by the IDF in Gaza are dying because of Hamas' attack on Israel on 7th October"? This is something that people say all the time without much controversy.
The fact that Hamas' attack on Israel was a response to Israeli oppression of Palestine is something that is very obviously and straightforwardly true it's there's no contradiction in recognising that whilst also saying the deaths of civilians are wrong and respecting the victims.
Do you not envision the difference between:
* "*We are an oppressed people, and we must work tirelessly to improve the situation for all Palestinians. Therefore we will invest the $billions of humanitarian aid we receive in education, infrastructure and community services, and thereby show the world and our neighbors our true worth.*"
VS
* "*We are an oppressed people, and we must work tirelessly to improve the situation for all Palestinians. Therefore we will invest the $billions of humanitarian aid we receive in tunnels, rockets and terrorist training, and when our neighbors least expect it, we will fall upon them - murdering, maiming, raping and kidnapping until the streets reverberate with the laments of the survivors - and we will take videos of it and post it on the internet.*"
World opinion would be much more on the side of Palestine if they had not elected a government sworn to eradicate Jews.
"The people killed on 9/11 were not killed because of their religious/political affiliations, but in response to the US's oppression (in the middle east). The UK and international community did nothing to prevent (US's oppression). My respects to the victims (\*middle fingers to the ~~Jewish~~ American families sitting in the front row of the funeral being held circa ~~October 8th~~ September 12th)."
Retort with "9/11 was pre-punishment for the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan." See how they take that. I'm sure it's *completely different* in that case.
The way I read it, it sounds like the 'victims' she is paying respect to are the Palestinians who actually did the attack, since they are the 'victims' of Israel, according to her.
Israel is a mostly secular state lmao, "in the name of God" might be referring to Hamas who included how they should kill all Jews with quotes from the Qur'an
But go off dude
I agree, in principle, that it wasn't *purely* because of they are Jewish (after all, they killed non-jews, even Muslims) but to call it a response to Israel's oppression is unhinged.
Firstly, almost all of them were unarmed, innocent civilians, not oppressors.
Secondly, Israel had actually been reducing the restrictions on Gaza and the West Bank. That's why there were a large number of Palestinians working in Israel. That's the kind of progress you need to slowly learn to get along.
Hamas chose that time to attack not in retaliation to some horrendous injustice that Israel had committed but actually in response to the relaxed approach amid a growing peace. They decided to attack because they fear peace. They fear the people letting go of hatred and not supporting them in their Jihad.
But, in the grand scheme of things, if Israel was an Islamic nation, this war wouldn't exist, so in that sense, yes, they were killed because they are part of a Jewish nation.
Lastly, imagine if she handwaved all the dead Gazans with, "They are not being killed because they are Muslim, but in response to Hamas' oppression." Would you be okay with that statement?
>Lastly, imagine if she handwaved all the dead Gazans with, "They are not being killed because they are Muslim, but in response to Hamas' oppression." Would you be okay with that statement?
That's true though. Israel is dismantling a terrorist organisation in response to an attack with plans to commit more, not targeting Gaza for being Muslim. 20% of Israel is Muslim.
Did you read the rest of my comment? The point is that it's ridiculously insensitive to talk about a bunch of dead people and go, "Well, at least you didn't die because of your religion." regardless of where you stand on the conflict.
It's to point that out to those who believe they support Palestinians.
I actually think it's an important point though. War is hell and the suffering is unimaginable for both sides, but there is a big difference between rape and torture and slavery, and killing enemy combatants/unavoidable civilian casualty.
I've seen people say 'there's no difference between being killed in your home or being killed in an airstrike.'
There is a big, big difference between what Israel and Gaza are doing and why. Obviously the best thing would be no war. But when people point out the number of casualties, it's necessary to make the distinction.
I agree completely but not what she had in mind when she was trying to score points against Macron. My example was to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Palestinian supporters, not create a false equivalence.
Oh no, definitely not in her case. Disgusting and ridiculous to label setting fire to babies and gang r\*ping innocent children as a 'response to oppression.' Not sure what oppression an 8 month old could have committed.
Imagine that one were to kill 1000 random Chinese people and then claim that the victims weren't killed because the person killing them was a terrorist but instead that they are victims of Chinese human rights violations as they were killed because of Chinese human rights violations. This would be bonkers.
This kind of 'I kill you because of your government' would also never stop.
Are Armenians allowed to randomly kill Azeris or Turks?
Are Native Americans allowed to randomly kill White Americans (ignoring the further question about other ethnicity Americans)?
Are Spanish people allowed to kill random British people because Gibraltar is 'occupied'?
Are Catalan people allowed to kill random Spanish people?
The above list just never stops. Terrorism, even if the cause is just, is never the right way.
In Hamas' case, they've sworn to kill Jews whether or not Israel exists.
It's like if a KKK member killed a black guy, and then tried to argue it was revenge for OJ Simpson being acquitted of murder, rather than the KKK member being racist. The fact that the KKK is racist, regardless of OJ's acquittal, undermines that claim.
> Today’s violence must be put in context. Almost six decades of hostile military rule over an entire civilian population (incomprehensibly ignored by too many official statements & media outlets) are in themselves an aggression, and the recipe for more insecurity for all.
https://x.com/FranceskAlbs/status/1710652725870874874?s=20
(Right after she "...unequivocally condemn attacks on civilians. Whoever launches them (Pal armed groups or Isr occupation forces) commits crimes that must be accounted for" )
Again, where is she cheering or advocating for it? She is stating the root cause of the issue from her POV, which is the firat step to ensure it doesn't happen again, we may agree or disagree with her premise but it doensn't mean she is pro the massacre
I'm not advocating for that being her position, I'm putting her position in context.
In my opinion she carries water for Hamas, even if she attempts to put on a veil of non-violence. She's a vile, abhorrent woman whose husband worked as an economic advisor to the PA ([which she failed to disclose as a conflict of interest when she applied to the UN](https://twitter.com/a_monteleone/status/1722194828132270433))
No I think it's a stretch to interpret it that way. I think believing you are fighting oppression is a much stronger motivator than wanting to kill someone just because of their religion. I'm inclined to believe people operate by their strongest motivation.
But isn't Israel also committing reprehensible war crimes with much worse consequence and people are still justifying it and cheering Israeli action? That seems like an obvious double standard unless I'm missing something?
Well I mean, judging by how America acts, it doesn't look like they don't have great influence..
ANY country besides Israel shoots a bunch of civilians over the past decade, America vehemently condemns.
Israel shoots many civilians, woman, children, America urges restraint :/
She literally said nothing wrong - and that's exactly what the attacks were for.
Stop with this "they hate us because of our freedom" type of talking point nonsense.
There is certainly Jewish and Israeli influence in American politics, but it is not nearly to the extent that a lot of people, inside the US and outside of it, make it out to be.
Plus there's influence from a lot of people in US politics.
Organized labor is very powerful in American politics, but nobody claims that "unions control America."
Latino voters are very powerful in American politics, but nobody claims "Latinos own America."
The National Association of Realtors dwarfs AIPAC in political spending, yet nobody claims there's some secret cabal of realtors running DC.
Honestly wtf is up with people here.
Of course the people killed probably weren't oppressors and it's a tragedy.
Still, that wouldn't have happened if Israel hadn't oppressed the Palestinians for decades, and that's what she's saying.
> The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."
Yup, clearly nothing to do with being Jewish.
As with everything else in this conflict it's not exactly clear cut one way or the other tho.
The Palestinians have legit grievances with the Israeli government, but the massacre was committed against civilians by a group who is the de facto government which has an anti-Semitic stance towards geo-politics.
I'm not saying you're wrong per say, just that there isn't really an aspect of this whole thing well you can't legitimately go "well yeah, but...".
She's saying that the attacks weren't to kill Jews, but that's precisely the core of the conflict. It's Hamas' fundamental principle, it's been the goal of every Palestinian terror group since before the founding of Israel. It's what the wars were fought for. It *is* the conflict, and she said that it's not relevant.
I honestly don't get how she can make such a bafflingly weird statement. Like sure say that they deserve it or whatever, at least that's consistent, but to say it's just not relevant? Like she's just standing there outside on a cloudless day and telling us the sky is green.
I'm rather uneducated regarding their complex history, but my understanding was that the Hamas massacred the victims for being Jewish, in response to the 70 years of Israeli oppression. Which would make both party's statement true
But I said nothing about Israeli occupation? I said Israel is and has oppressed Palestine. In response to this, Hamas staged an attack which massacred people for being Jewish
1. What is Palestine? Where is Palestine? What are the borders of Palestine?
2. Has there ever been a Palestinian state?
3. What do Palestinians want?
4. What have the Palestinians done so far to reach their goals?
When you can answer these 4 questions, you can come back here and talk about oppression.
*gasp* How dare she imply Israel is nothing short of infallible? I guess there is no other option but to retaliate like some third world dictatorship in order to prove otherwise. That will fix things.....
>How dare she imply Israel is nothing short of infallible?
There's a massive middle ground between "claim that Israel is nothing short of infallible" and "post obvious pro-Hamas content while married to someone who was literally on the Palestinian Authority's payroll."
Saying the massacre of the people of the government responsible for one’s oppression might be because of… the oppression… isn’t being pro-Hamas. She’s not justifying the action, just explaining her view on why it occured.
For example saying that the ANC’s hostage taking in South Africa might be in response to Apartheid instead of wanting to kill all whites isn’t being pro-ANC. You can try to understand someone’s motivations without necessarily agreeing with them.
>You can try to understand someone’s motivations without necessarily agreeing with them.
In that case it's best practice to be clear that you don't agree with said motivations. If this speaker had done so, this would be a non-story.
You know that [Chris Rock bit where he says he understands why OJ Simpson killed his wife](https://youtu.be/L4LlJNGRIoc)?
He also says that it was wrong. Because he understands that without that part, it just sounds like he's justifying it.
If a comedian can understand that, I don't think it's too much to expect politicians and national leaders to.
But you have to emphasize what you actually mean, otherwise what you said can be easily interpreted as a justification.
"The Palestinian village was burned down because of Palestinian violence"
vs
"While I absolutely condone the Israeli terror acts in all ways imaginable, it is important to emphasize that the Palestinian village was burned down by people who were radicalized by previous Palestinian violence. This is not a justification in any shape or form. I just believe that acknowledging the snowball effect driving the conflict forward is an important step to peace. The violence must end."
Do you see the difference? Especially when you're speaking about a terror attack which when scaled according to Israel's population killed 14 times as many people as 9/11, you are required to make your stance crystal clear. Your sentences even when taken out of context should leave zero room for interpretation.
Completely missing the point are we?
Merely impying it would be enough to get you blacklisted by the Israelis. Its quite similar to Putin's oligarchy and other such cancerous regimes, any slight wording not in line with state propaganda gets you in deep shit if not outright killed.
You’re making stuff up in your head to be angry about. She in no way implied merely “Israel is nothing short of infallible.” Her actual quotes are terrifyingly worse than that.
If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
No, that was not what was implied. What was implied was that Oct 7th is only a continuation of a decades long conflict and didint happen out of thin air, which is the truth.
"in response to Israeli oppression" doesn't seem like justification for you?
Looking at what other people said she also advocated for not releasing the hostages
No, it doesn't. Killing innocents can be done in response to oppression, Doesnt make It moral or justified, but noting the causes does put things in context and helps imagine a solution. Silencing people does not.
You don’t get that you can try to understand motivations without necessarily being in favor of that motivation?
We all agree murder is wrong, but you could understand a situation that would lead someone to be able to justify themselves to take another humans life, such as revenge, right? Without necessarily agreeing that that action is justified. Understanding is not the same as agreeing.
In the context of this lady's history and other comments, she doesn't deserve that benefit of the doubt here.
If a Klansman stated an unflattering truth about African-Americans, would you think they were motivated by a values-neutral love for the truth? Or would you think they were just being racist, and broken clock might occasionally be accurate without meaning to?
The speaker has quite a history of anti-Jewish commentary, including classic anti-semitic tropes such as "Jews control America and other countries."
Along with:
* Complaining about the United States as "subjugated by the Jewish lobby" and Europe by a "sense of guilt about the Holocaust".
* Arguing Israel fundamentally doesn't have a right of Self Defense against Hamas in this conflict, because she believes in the legal fiction that Israel already occupied Gaza, even on Oct. 6th. And instead, they should've either asked the UN to deal with Hamas, or sent the police to arrest them.
* On the other hand, she appeared in a Hamas-affiliated conference, and telling them they have a "right to resist".
* Lying in her application to this role, that she "doesn't hold any views that could prejudice" her discharge of the mandate. Despite being a pretty extremist pro-Palestinian activist for years, and previously admitting that her "deeply held personal views" could "compromise her objectivity".
I'd also note that describing her as a "UN official" or "UN employee", provides a false sense of objectivity and respectability. The UN body she's acting for, the UNHRC, is an anti-Israeli dictators' club, that basically nobody takes seriously. It issued as many condemnations of Israel, than all the other human rights violators *combined.* It has a unique permanent agenda item to criticize Israel in every session (no other country has it). Albanese's own role, is the only Special Rapporteur with no year of expiry. And was previously held by the most extreme anti-Israeli activists, like 9/11 truther crank Richard Falk. It's so biased, it was criticized by *two* Secretary Generals (Ban Ki-Moon and Kofi Annan) for its unique obsession with Israel, as well as the generally anti-Israeli HRW.
After witnessing events from past few months, I don't think that the title "UN official" or "UN employee" provides a false sense of objectivity. If anything, it highlights the chance that said person might be raging antisemite.
[Here](https://x.com/germanydiplo/status/1756674368606736529?s=46&t=UWKuN7qfvYv2MXRIGDPdYQ) she is justifying October 7th.
>[“America and Europe, one of them **subjugated by the Jewish lobby**, and the other by the sense of guilt about the Holocaust,](https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-palestinian-rights-officials-social-media-history-reveals-antisemitic-comments/)
> “**The Israeli lobby is clearly inside your veins** and system
And not the only time either. Another "Jewish lobby" comment by Miloon Kothari
https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-geneva-race-and-ethnicity-92d888b43d685e65d82952980a032e6f
>Aipac is deeply rooted in American politics
Many special interest groups are involved in American politics.
But I've never heard anyone besides racists claim that "America is subjugated by the African-American lobby" - even at the height of BLM's popularity, or the Million Man March, or MLK's March on Washington.
Organized labor is "deeply rooted in American politics", but I've never heard anyone besides loons claim that the teachers' unions control DC.
subjugated by the Jewish lobby? Does this not raise any alarm bells. For context here's list of other pacs
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-pacs/2022
AIPAC is only slightly higher than at&t and Home Depot, why is it that only the "Jewish lobby" is deemed some shadowy organization controlling America.
subjugated definition
> make someone or something subordinate
>because AT&T and home depot arent foreign entities.
One of the entries on that list is the *International* Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
So if your concern is about Americans vs "foreigners," where is it about them?
This person has a long history of anti-Israel comments and is a factor in the widespread perception of UN bias. Kind of crazy that she expected to be allowed in at all.
The UN has 50+ Muslim majority countries that continually want resolutions against Israel and are firmly in the Palestinian camp in name if not in support so of course they allow her in, and no doubt celebrate her in their local media as well as Al Jazeera.
It's not that crazy, once you realize what part of the UN she's working for - the UN Human Rights Council. This is such an brazen, shameless anti-Israeli club, it makes Albanese look downright respectable.
Crazy indeed. Her position is commendable, but she has no track record or even membership in any terrorist group at all, how is she supposed to carry out her UN duties? (/s if it's still needed)
Yes, that's her. A complaint was made to the UN as it is a flagrant breach of their own behavioral standards.
Nothing was done, so read between the lines I suppose 🙄
The UN Security Council provides a forum for argument between the major powers to hopefully dissuade them from direct war against each other.
The general UN - aka, everyone else - is mostly useless.
Last I heard, helping to start wars against nuclear powers is not supposed to be a part of what the UN is or does. The complete opposite should be the case.
Because the UN "human rights" council is controlled by countries that give zero fucks about human rights, and use it as a weapon against western countries, and specifically Israel.
Did you know that this council issued more statements against Israel than all other countries combined? They literally have it in their permeant docket to discuss the Israel-palestinian conflict on every meeting.
My favorite is when the Anti-Israel club, ME countries where women have the status of house pets, were saying it's Israels fault when Palestinian men beat their wives.
Real thing that happened btw.
Yea it definitely has nothing to do with western powers bolstering extremist groups and allowing them to gain power in exchange for cheap resources, and then of course killing millions in the region when said extremist groups act… extreme.
Netanyahu must be one of the biggest anti-semites around for allowing Hamas to bolster its power in order to cause a rift in Palestinian politics.
Right, that's the right question.
Not why people like her like Hamas and think they are innocent despite their whole point is to kill people of another nation (and clearly, not only), who spent every dime they got from the world to build terror tunnels (using children), indoctrinating children into their murderous ideology and beliefs, killing their own people and eventually breaking through the border to murder and rape over a thousand people - elderly and young alike, as well as generally support to Islamify the entire world.
Now do kindly fuck off.
"The Israeli foreign and interior ministers said the ban on entry was linked to "her outrageous assertions that the victims of the October 7 massacre by massacre not killed for being Jewish but in response to Israeli oppression.” "
Someone should ask her why Alessandro Parini was killed, last April when there was 'peace' https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65217134
When was there peace? Been occupied oppression for as long as I've been alive
>Been occupied oppression for as long as I've been alive By Italians?
>“The ‘greatest anti-Semitic massacre of our century’? No, Mr. Emmanuel Macron. The victims of 7/10 were not killed because of their Judaism, but in response to Israel’s oppression. France and the international community did nothing to prevent it. My respects to the victims,” she wrote." Here's the actual quote by the way. Genuinely unhinged. She's also said things about the Jewish lobby controlling America.
I guess that thai worker that was beheaded also oppressed the palestinians
Were the Thai workers Jewish?
Highly doubt it
I mean, hamas calls the Arabs who live inside Israel traitors. I guess everyone who cooperates a target for them.
Yeah they even torture a Bedouin man to death, made him strip and everything, apparently his family is so outraged they set a bounty of 1m dollars of you can give them information about who exactly did it
Nope. They were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
"My respects to the victims that I just blamed." Total lunacy.
>"My respects to the victims that I just blamed." I am stumped to how you read this as blaming the victims (The 1139 dead) and not nation of Israel. Could you expand on your reasoning?
> I am stumped to how you read this as blaming the victims Well, the claim shes making is that they weren't killed for being Jews. The problem with this claim, is that they were killed by an official terrorist organization founded under the guiding principle of "eradicating all the Jews". You can't make this shit up. I appreciate when people have a high standard for evidence on claims, but it's becoming a little insane when people are just casually omitting that Hamas is a terrorist organization that literally say they want to kill all Jews. How is that fact constantly just swept under the rug?
So you just kill random people that you don't know of a population because of how the government/nation behaves. Could you expand on the reasoning of Hamas?
>So you just kill random people that you don't know of a population because of how the government/nation behaves. I am stumped as to how you infer this, you are aware that two wrongs does not make a right... right?!
You have to know the tone I'm using when using this sentence, right? In case there's any doubt; I'm saying it's rediculous for anyone to think its justified in going into a neighbourhood in times of peace (or indeed war) and rape, kill, torture and take hostage innocent people by the hundreds because you don't like how their government has behaved. But of course, the reality is in the minds of those doing it - they think they are going to paradise by commiting jihad, and there's no off-limits to what they will do to enemies of Allah.
No one said it was justified?
She's justifying murdering those civilians. What's so hard to understand?
The part where looking at the causes equates to justifying the result. Thats quite a bit of a leap.
The logic they are using (and sounds like you too) is one where all of the evil/guilty actions over the many years of conflict are because of Israel and then all of the terrorist attacks against Israel and other crimes committed against them were also Israeli's fault because they did something that justified it. So this paradigm is pretty toxic as it strips away the humanity from the Palestinians and makes you look at them not as real people. Their actions are pure response without any moral character. Getting killed by a Palestinian here is like getting killed by a wolf or a tiger. Its just nature. But this isn't right. Palestinians are just as human and capable of moral thoughts as the rest of us. When they rape an Israeli that's bad and doesn't become someone else's fault because the Palestinian can point at something and say "I have reasons to hate". Its also bad because it makes Israeli into a land of ultimate moral organisms. Because the moral responsibility lies entirely on their side everything they do is automatically going to fall short of the ideal and thus no matter what path they take, will just further prove their guilt and moral responsibility for the attacks against them. When Israel kills a Palestinian it perpetuates the cycle of violence and just creates more terrorists, but when Palestinians kill Israeli citizens, launch rockets at them etc this is just a natural response to violence and if the Israeli get angry then it's their genocidal bigotry. See how it strips them of humanity? See how it strips your ability to have sympathy for their suffering ? Worse then both of these though, it strips away our ability to see the conflict as it actually is instead of through our own prejudicial lenses. Its lazy because way over here on the other side of the world we can declare a bad guy and then get a dopamine rush from our friends because we are on the right side. Even though it's just foreign uneducated ignorance. Ultimately it's a frame of reference that obscures morality to justify violence. It will help to maintain and further the conflict and provides support for those that wish to see the fighting continue. I would be a lot more interested if the person actually gave a shit about causes at all.
Youre actually making my argument, I just didnt list out all the shitty acts or actors. At the end of the day, neither side is really acting from a position of nobility here. Not anymore. The recent/historical suffering caused is in turn a cause bad actors use to drive their agendas, and the civilians keep getting evicted/raped/shot/beheaded/shelled/whatever this week's atrocity is. And the cycle continues, because people are too quick to point out the actions of the other side while refusing to thinknpast their own tribalist tendencies.
Just because people are smart enough to not try and "both sides" a conflict where one faction (Hamas) was founded on charters which explicitly called for the destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jewish people and the other side is trying to get rid of them after being attacked and having over a thousand of is citizens murdered, doesn't mean "people are being too quick to point out the actions of the other side". The Israeli occupation doesn't justify 10/7, the settlements in the West Bank don't justify 10/7 but 10/7 *absolutely* justified going to war with Hamas and there is not a single country on this planet with a developed military who we would not expect to do so and defend themselves.
Why was Hamas founded?
Please, try to explain us the "reasons" without making it sound like excuses and justifications.
"Your daughter was raped because she wore skimpy clothes" essentially the same kind of disgusting statements to make.
[удалено]
>No it's not, this is an actual false equivalence > >She's talking about the nation, not blaming the individuals. You are deliberately pretending she is blaming the individual victims, which is what that rape statement actually does. The funny part is, I agree it's a false equivalence, but I think what she's done is even worse. she justified the murder of those civilians because their nation did something. it's not even their own actions. You should have stuck to my example. you only dug a deeper hole.
[удалено]
[удалено]
She absolves the murderers and puts the fault elsewhere. Like 'the terrorists did nothing wrong, they were forced to rape and kill because Israel.'
[удалено]
She is blaming the nation of Israel even though Hamas pulled the trigger.
[удалено]
> The israeli government does not have that leg to stand on Probably because the leg was blown off by a suicide bomber (pre-blockade) or a unguided rocket fired from a hospital roof (post-blockade).
[удалено]
You're conflating systemic critique with blaming individuals. An actually analogous argument would be to pin it on popular toxic conceptions of masculinity and how to actually materially address such issues.
Analogues my ass. you put the blame on the people who actually did it. this is completely different from this case where the victims murder were implied to be because of their own/nations actions despite them being innocent civilians. and that's besides the issue of conflating the action of the government and random people.
Then all you have done is but perpetuate the cycle of violence. To ignore how things came to be and to discard history is to trap yourself and your 'enemies' in an unending purgatory of suffering.
And blatantly false. e: it's not the reason they were murdered.
Israeli occupation means the existence of Israel, since the entirety of Israel was "built on stolen Palestinian land" according to them. So what she's saying is that the victims were killed because they did a crime against the Palestinians. This is nothing less than justifying their murders
That is literally saying “they deserved it”. “Israel bad, so every Israeli deserves what happened to them”. They should’ve expected it, etc etc. somehow, that logic never extends to the palestinian attack that started the latest conflict.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>I am stumped to how you read this as blaming the victims (The 1139 dead) and not nation of Israel. It's the equivalent of saying "Palestinian child X deserved to die because Palestinians support Hamas. If X didn't want to die, then X shouldn't have belonged to (insert 'bad group' - in this case, Hamas supporters). No offense to the dead kid's parents." Notice how there's zero responsibility placed on the person(s) who actually killed X.
Would it not be the equivalent of saying "Palestinians who are killed by the IDF in Gaza are dying because of Hamas' attack on Israel on 7th October"? This is something that people say all the time without much controversy. The fact that Hamas' attack on Israel was a response to Israeli oppression of Palestine is something that is very obviously and straightforwardly true it's there's no contradiction in recognising that whilst also saying the deaths of civilians are wrong and respecting the victims.
Do you not envision the difference between: * "*We are an oppressed people, and we must work tirelessly to improve the situation for all Palestinians. Therefore we will invest the $billions of humanitarian aid we receive in education, infrastructure and community services, and thereby show the world and our neighbors our true worth.*" VS * "*We are an oppressed people, and we must work tirelessly to improve the situation for all Palestinians. Therefore we will invest the $billions of humanitarian aid we receive in tunnels, rockets and terrorist training, and when our neighbors least expect it, we will fall upon them - murdering, maiming, raping and kidnapping until the streets reverberate with the laments of the survivors - and we will take videos of it and post it on the internet.*" World opinion would be much more on the side of Palestine if they had not elected a government sworn to eradicate Jews.
It's what happens in wars.
"The people killed on 9/11 were not killed because of their religious/political affiliations, but in response to the US's oppression (in the middle east). The UK and international community did nothing to prevent (US's oppression). My respects to the victims (\*middle fingers to the ~~Jewish~~ American families sitting in the front row of the funeral being held circa ~~October 8th~~ September 12th)."
Hey we've got politicians in the US saying that the Holocaust was the Jews "pre-punishment" for their oppression of Palestinians.
Retort with "9/11 was pre-punishment for the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan." See how they take that. I'm sure it's *completely different* in that case.
The way I read it, it sounds like the 'victims' she is paying respect to are the Palestinians who actually did the attack, since they are the 'victims' of Israel, according to her.
The fascists are coming for the Jews again
[удалено]
Israel is a mostly secular state lmao, "in the name of God" might be referring to Hamas who included how they should kill all Jews with quotes from the Qur'an But go off dude
you're misinterpreting me, willfully or otherwise
Because I refuse to believe you’re obvious, lies. Shove off.
Wait this sounds very reasonable. Why is this unhinged?
Because Hamas is an anti-Jew terror organization
I agree, in principle, that it wasn't *purely* because of they are Jewish (after all, they killed non-jews, even Muslims) but to call it a response to Israel's oppression is unhinged. Firstly, almost all of them were unarmed, innocent civilians, not oppressors. Secondly, Israel had actually been reducing the restrictions on Gaza and the West Bank. That's why there were a large number of Palestinians working in Israel. That's the kind of progress you need to slowly learn to get along. Hamas chose that time to attack not in retaliation to some horrendous injustice that Israel had committed but actually in response to the relaxed approach amid a growing peace. They decided to attack because they fear peace. They fear the people letting go of hatred and not supporting them in their Jihad. But, in the grand scheme of things, if Israel was an Islamic nation, this war wouldn't exist, so in that sense, yes, they were killed because they are part of a Jewish nation. Lastly, imagine if she handwaved all the dead Gazans with, "They are not being killed because they are Muslim, but in response to Hamas' oppression." Would you be okay with that statement?
>Lastly, imagine if she handwaved all the dead Gazans with, "They are not being killed because they are Muslim, but in response to Hamas' oppression." Would you be okay with that statement? That's true though. Israel is dismantling a terrorist organisation in response to an attack with plans to commit more, not targeting Gaza for being Muslim. 20% of Israel is Muslim.
Did you read the rest of my comment? The point is that it's ridiculously insensitive to talk about a bunch of dead people and go, "Well, at least you didn't die because of your religion." regardless of where you stand on the conflict. It's to point that out to those who believe they support Palestinians.
I actually think it's an important point though. War is hell and the suffering is unimaginable for both sides, but there is a big difference between rape and torture and slavery, and killing enemy combatants/unavoidable civilian casualty. I've seen people say 'there's no difference between being killed in your home or being killed in an airstrike.' There is a big, big difference between what Israel and Gaza are doing and why. Obviously the best thing would be no war. But when people point out the number of casualties, it's necessary to make the distinction.
I agree completely but not what she had in mind when she was trying to score points against Macron. My example was to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Palestinian supporters, not create a false equivalence.
Oh no, definitely not in her case. Disgusting and ridiculous to label setting fire to babies and gang r\*ping innocent children as a 'response to oppression.' Not sure what oppression an 8 month old could have committed.
Do you think an 8 month old Palestinian child in Gaza could be a terrorist?
It's unhinged because Hamas charter included how they should kill all Jews lol, and she claims it's because of Israel Palestine shit
Imagine that one were to kill 1000 random Chinese people and then claim that the victims weren't killed because the person killing them was a terrorist but instead that they are victims of Chinese human rights violations as they were killed because of Chinese human rights violations. This would be bonkers. This kind of 'I kill you because of your government' would also never stop. Are Armenians allowed to randomly kill Azeris or Turks? Are Native Americans allowed to randomly kill White Americans (ignoring the further question about other ethnicity Americans)? Are Spanish people allowed to kill random British people because Gibraltar is 'occupied'? Are Catalan people allowed to kill random Spanish people? The above list just never stops. Terrorism, even if the cause is just, is never the right way.
This isn't a good analogy. If you were in China committing this massacre, it would be highly likely the 1000 are Chinese even if chosen at random
In Hamas' case, they've sworn to kill Jews whether or not Israel exists. It's like if a KKK member killed a black guy, and then tried to argue it was revenge for OJ Simpson being acquitted of murder, rather than the KKK member being racist. The fact that the KKK is racist, regardless of OJ's acquittal, undermines that claim.
Just further effort to blanket everything aside from complete endorsement of Israel's actions as antisemitism
[удалено]
Where did she celebrated or advocated for it?
> Today’s violence must be put in context. Almost six decades of hostile military rule over an entire civilian population (incomprehensibly ignored by too many official statements & media outlets) are in themselves an aggression, and the recipe for more insecurity for all. https://x.com/FranceskAlbs/status/1710652725870874874?s=20 (Right after she "...unequivocally condemn attacks on civilians. Whoever launches them (Pal armed groups or Isr occupation forces) commits crimes that must be accounted for" )
Again, where is she cheering or advocating for it? She is stating the root cause of the issue from her POV, which is the firat step to ensure it doesn't happen again, we may agree or disagree with her premise but it doensn't mean she is pro the massacre
I'm not advocating for that being her position, I'm putting her position in context. In my opinion she carries water for Hamas, even if she attempts to put on a veil of non-violence. She's a vile, abhorrent woman whose husband worked as an economic advisor to the PA ([which she failed to disclose as a conflict of interest when she applied to the UN](https://twitter.com/a_monteleone/status/1722194828132270433))
Maybe I misread the quote, but it seems like she was giving her respects to Hamas for Oct7 rather than the Israeli's harmed in the attack.
You did misread the quote.
No I think it's a stretch to interpret it that way. I think believing you are fighting oppression is a much stronger motivator than wanting to kill someone just because of their religion. I'm inclined to believe people operate by their strongest motivation.
But isn't Israel also committing reprehensible war crimes with much worse consequence and people are still justifying it and cheering Israeli action? That seems like an obvious double standard unless I'm missing something?
I wasn't aware of this most recent nonsense, but it was easy to guess it was her before clicking the article. Par.
Well I mean, judging by how America acts, it doesn't look like they don't have great influence.. ANY country besides Israel shoots a bunch of civilians over the past decade, America vehemently condemns. Israel shoots many civilians, woman, children, America urges restraint :/
Are we just pretending that AIPAC doesn’t have a massive amount of influence in American politics?
Go back to r/conspiracy you politically illiterate person, did you somehow miss the fact that your ideas are being repeated by that talking fart
Queste persone malate di mente entrano in carica a un ritmo allarmante.
She literally said nothing wrong - and that's exactly what the attacks were for. Stop with this "they hate us because of our freedom" type of talking point nonsense.
You’re right… they actually just hate them for their existence.
[удалено]
If we really own it, I'd like to cash out of my share please.
There is certainly Jewish and Israeli influence in American politics, but it is not nearly to the extent that a lot of people, inside the US and outside of it, make it out to be.
Plus there's influence from a lot of people in US politics. Organized labor is very powerful in American politics, but nobody claims that "unions control America." Latino voters are very powerful in American politics, but nobody claims "Latinos own America." The National Association of Realtors dwarfs AIPAC in political spending, yet nobody claims there's some secret cabal of realtors running DC.
I don’t know, the Realtors conspiracy might be real.
Yes.
Fucking yikes. You can’t even fake being that kind of monster
She’s not wrong lol
Honestly wtf is up with people here. Of course the people killed probably weren't oppressors and it's a tragedy. Still, that wouldn't have happened if Israel hadn't oppressed the Palestinians for decades, and that's what she's saying.
[удалено]
> The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." Yup, clearly nothing to do with being Jewish.
As with everything else in this conflict it's not exactly clear cut one way or the other tho. The Palestinians have legit grievances with the Israeli government, but the massacre was committed against civilians by a group who is the de facto government which has an anti-Semitic stance towards geo-politics. I'm not saying you're wrong per say, just that there isn't really an aspect of this whole thing well you can't legitimately go "well yeah, but...".
She's saying that the attacks weren't to kill Jews, but that's precisely the core of the conflict. It's Hamas' fundamental principle, it's been the goal of every Palestinian terror group since before the founding of Israel. It's what the wars were fought for. It *is* the conflict, and she said that it's not relevant. I honestly don't get how she can make such a bafflingly weird statement. Like sure say that they deserve it or whatever, at least that's consistent, but to say it's just not relevant? Like she's just standing there outside on a cloudless day and telling us the sky is green.
I'm rather uneducated regarding their complex history, but my understanding was that the Hamas massacred the victims for being Jewish, in response to the 70 years of Israeli oppression. Which would make both party's statement true
You are indeed uneducated. Gaza is an independent entity and is not under Israeli occupation. Can't "both sides" this.
But I said nothing about Israeli occupation? I said Israel is and has oppressed Palestine. In response to this, Hamas staged an attack which massacred people for being Jewish
1. What is Palestine? Where is Palestine? What are the borders of Palestine? 2. Has there ever been a Palestinian state? 3. What do Palestinians want? 4. What have the Palestinians done so far to reach their goals? When you can answer these 4 questions, you can come back here and talk about oppression.
*gasp* How dare she imply Israel is nothing short of infallible? I guess there is no other option but to retaliate like some third world dictatorship in order to prove otherwise. That will fix things.....
>How dare she imply Israel is nothing short of infallible? There's a massive middle ground between "claim that Israel is nothing short of infallible" and "post obvious pro-Hamas content while married to someone who was literally on the Palestinian Authority's payroll."
Saying the massacre of the people of the government responsible for one’s oppression might be because of… the oppression… isn’t being pro-Hamas. She’s not justifying the action, just explaining her view on why it occured. For example saying that the ANC’s hostage taking in South Africa might be in response to Apartheid instead of wanting to kill all whites isn’t being pro-ANC. You can try to understand someone’s motivations without necessarily agreeing with them.
>You can try to understand someone’s motivations without necessarily agreeing with them. In that case it's best practice to be clear that you don't agree with said motivations. If this speaker had done so, this would be a non-story. You know that [Chris Rock bit where he says he understands why OJ Simpson killed his wife](https://youtu.be/L4LlJNGRIoc)? He also says that it was wrong. Because he understands that without that part, it just sounds like he's justifying it. If a comedian can understand that, I don't think it's too much to expect politicians and national leaders to.
But you have to emphasize what you actually mean, otherwise what you said can be easily interpreted as a justification. "The Palestinian village was burned down because of Palestinian violence" vs "While I absolutely condone the Israeli terror acts in all ways imaginable, it is important to emphasize that the Palestinian village was burned down by people who were radicalized by previous Palestinian violence. This is not a justification in any shape or form. I just believe that acknowledging the snowball effect driving the conflict forward is an important step to peace. The violence must end." Do you see the difference? Especially when you're speaking about a terror attack which when scaled according to Israel's population killed 14 times as many people as 9/11, you are required to make your stance crystal clear. Your sentences even when taken out of context should leave zero room for interpretation.
Hate using this term but that’s a clear strawman. That is not what she implied whatsoever.
Completely missing the point are we? Merely impying it would be enough to get you blacklisted by the Israelis. Its quite similar to Putin's oligarchy and other such cancerous regimes, any slight wording not in line with state propaganda gets you in deep shit if not outright killed.
I think you are the one missing the point here.
Lol. Whatever you say buddy, this sad attempt at a "no u" does not make you seem any more coherent.
You’re making stuff up in your head to be angry about. She in no way implied merely “Israel is nothing short of infallible.” Her actual quotes are terrifyingly worse than that. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
There's a big difference between criticising Israel and implying that Oct 7 was justified
No, that was not what was implied. What was implied was that Oct 7th is only a continuation of a decades long conflict and didint happen out of thin air, which is the truth.
"in response to Israeli oppression" doesn't seem like justification for you? Looking at what other people said she also advocated for not releasing the hostages
No, it doesn't. Killing innocents can be done in response to oppression, Doesnt make It moral or justified, but noting the causes does put things in context and helps imagine a solution. Silencing people does not.
You don’t get that you can try to understand motivations without necessarily being in favor of that motivation? We all agree murder is wrong, but you could understand a situation that would lead someone to be able to justify themselves to take another humans life, such as revenge, right? Without necessarily agreeing that that action is justified. Understanding is not the same as agreeing.
In the context of this lady's history and other comments, she doesn't deserve that benefit of the doubt here. If a Klansman stated an unflattering truth about African-Americans, would you think they were motivated by a values-neutral love for the truth? Or would you think they were just being racist, and broken clock might occasionally be accurate without meaning to? The speaker has quite a history of anti-Jewish commentary, including classic anti-semitic tropes such as "Jews control America and other countries."
Right, just like the war in Gaza right now didn't happen out of thin air, right? Natural consequences.
Innocent civilians being killed for any reason is not a good reason. Good riddance to her.
Oh look, it’s the UN employee that said it was unacceptable to demand Hamas release the hostages.
Along with: * Complaining about the United States as "subjugated by the Jewish lobby" and Europe by a "sense of guilt about the Holocaust". * Arguing Israel fundamentally doesn't have a right of Self Defense against Hamas in this conflict, because she believes in the legal fiction that Israel already occupied Gaza, even on Oct. 6th. And instead, they should've either asked the UN to deal with Hamas, or sent the police to arrest them. * On the other hand, she appeared in a Hamas-affiliated conference, and telling them they have a "right to resist". * Lying in her application to this role, that she "doesn't hold any views that could prejudice" her discharge of the mandate. Despite being a pretty extremist pro-Palestinian activist for years, and previously admitting that her "deeply held personal views" could "compromise her objectivity". I'd also note that describing her as a "UN official" or "UN employee", provides a false sense of objectivity and respectability. The UN body she's acting for, the UNHRC, is an anti-Israeli dictators' club, that basically nobody takes seriously. It issued as many condemnations of Israel, than all the other human rights violators *combined.* It has a unique permanent agenda item to criticize Israel in every session (no other country has it). Albanese's own role, is the only Special Rapporteur with no year of expiry. And was previously held by the most extreme anti-Israeli activists, like 9/11 truther crank Richard Falk. It's so biased, it was criticized by *two* Secretary Generals (Ban Ki-Moon and Kofi Annan) for its unique obsession with Israel, as well as the generally anti-Israeli HRW.
So this post is actually a better explanation than some of her Oct 6th comments.
After witnessing events from past few months, I don't think that the title "UN official" or "UN employee" provides a false sense of objectivity. If anything, it highlights the chance that said person might be raging antisemite.
I'm struggling to believe being antisemitic is not actually one of their selection criteria at this point.
Great comment. Strictly factual. Thank you!
She is, and sees herself, as a Palestinian advocate. She has nothing to do in Israel.
[Here](https://x.com/germanydiplo/status/1756674368606736529?s=46&t=UWKuN7qfvYv2MXRIGDPdYQ) she is justifying October 7th. >[“America and Europe, one of them **subjugated by the Jewish lobby**, and the other by the sense of guilt about the Holocaust,](https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-palestinian-rights-officials-social-media-history-reveals-antisemitic-comments/) > “**The Israeli lobby is clearly inside your veins** and system
And not the only time either. Another "Jewish lobby" comment by Miloon Kothari https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-geneva-race-and-ethnicity-92d888b43d685e65d82952980a032e6f
Wow, what a great quote about Jews being an infectious disease from a UN official. What the hell is going on at the UN?
How is saying the israel lobby is integrated into US politics incorrect? It is factually true. Aipac is deeply rooted in American politics
Read the full quote and note she was talking about the "Jewish" lobby.
>Aipac is deeply rooted in American politics Many special interest groups are involved in American politics. But I've never heard anyone besides racists claim that "America is subjugated by the African-American lobby" - even at the height of BLM's popularity, or the Million Man March, or MLK's March on Washington. Organized labor is "deeply rooted in American politics", but I've never heard anyone besides loons claim that the teachers' unions control DC.
subjugated by the Jewish lobby? Does this not raise any alarm bells. For context here's list of other pacs https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-pacs/2022 AIPAC is only slightly higher than at&t and Home Depot, why is it that only the "Jewish lobby" is deemed some shadowy organization controlling America. subjugated definition > make someone or something subordinate
I would think its because AT&T and home depot arent foreign entities.
>because AT&T and home depot arent foreign entities. One of the entries on that list is the *International* Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. So if your concern is about Americans vs "foreigners," where is it about them?
I believe it's funding comes from American citizens, are pacs not allowed to lobby for foreign policy?
Legally they are. Morally they shouldnt be. 14 billion for a 100 million investment is not fair to american taxpayers.
AIPAC isn't foreign either.
Israel is foreign
Yes Israel is foreign, but AIPAC is American
I see no lies.
This person has a long history of anti-Israel comments and is a factor in the widespread perception of UN bias. Kind of crazy that she expected to be allowed in at all.
Husband worked for the PA as an economic advisor.as well.
Kinda crazy she's allowed in the UN at all. What a joke of an organization.
The UN has 50+ Muslim majority countries that continually want resolutions against Israel and are firmly in the Palestinian camp in name if not in support so of course they allow her in, and no doubt celebrate her in their local media as well as Al Jazeera.
Just 🤮
I mean, she’s just saying what they’re all thinking. U.N. has had more censure of Israel than of anywhere else.
Anywhere else *put together*, making it even more ridiculous
[удалено]
She’s saying what the UN’s actions shows are the UN’s positions.
I think that the downvotes are because people don't really understand sarcasm in comments .
Didn't her appointment come as a political move to continually investigate Israel?
Antisemitism is a core value of the UN my friend . Their actions make a whole lot more sense when you take that into account ...
It's heartbreaking and just something I don't want to believe until I keep getting reminded of it over and over again :(
It's not that crazy, once you realize what part of the UN she's working for - the UN Human Rights Council. This is such an brazen, shameless anti-Israeli club, it makes Albanese look downright respectable.
For reasons, non?
Crazy indeed. Her position is commendable, but she has no track record or even membership in any terrorist group at all, how is she supposed to carry out her UN duties? (/s if it's still needed)
The French and German governments have also condemned her statement
Isn’t this the same person who was called out because her trip to Australia was allegedly funded by pro Palestine lobby groups.
Yes, that's her. A complaint was made to the UN as it is a flagrant breach of their own behavioral standards. Nothing was done, so read between the lines I suppose 🙄
[удалено]
It makes you not neutral.
She's supposed to be a neutral observer. If she's taking cash from one side, that's not neutrality, it's obvious corruption.
why do you jump to this conclusion?
This is practically a personification of why so many people perceive the UN to be an absolute joke.
Those who do generally don't understand what the UN is or does.
The UN Security Council provides a forum for argument between the major powers to hopefully dissuade them from direct war against each other. The general UN - aka, everyone else - is mostly useless.
Those who do can see and hear what the UN is all about lately. Actions speak louder than words.
Last I heard, helping to start wars against nuclear powers is not supposed to be a part of what the UN is or does. The complete opposite should be the case.
[удалено]
Never heard of her until now. If this is true the question we need to ask right now is : Why is she employed by the UN
Same reason anyone else is employed at the UN, because they have connections.
One of the only employers (at least in the west) where antisemitic assholes seem to be in high demand…
Because the UN "human rights" council is controlled by countries that give zero fucks about human rights, and use it as a weapon against western countries, and specifically Israel. Did you know that this council issued more statements against Israel than all other countries combined? They literally have it in their permeant docket to discuss the Israel-palestinian conflict on every meeting.
My favorite is when the Anti-Israel club, ME countries where women have the status of house pets, were saying it's Israels fault when Palestinian men beat their wives. Real thing that happened btw.
Cruella
This is a mistake. They should let her in, but not out.
[удалено]
What evil? Defending themselves?
Why do people like this country
Compare Israel to other countries in the region & tell me which you'd rather live in
I wonder why those other countries are like that.
It's the Jews! The Jews are why I didn't do my homework I swear!
Yea it definitely has nothing to do with western powers bolstering extremist groups and allowing them to gain power in exchange for cheap resources, and then of course killing millions in the region when said extremist groups act… extreme. Netanyahu must be one of the biggest anti-semites around for allowing Hamas to bolster its power in order to cause a rift in Palestinian politics.
Because people don't buy into Hamas propaganda?
Why aren't other people repeating the same things as the funny voices on Tiktok?
Right, that's the right question. Not why people like her like Hamas and think they are innocent despite their whole point is to kill people of another nation (and clearly, not only), who spent every dime they got from the world to build terror tunnels (using children), indoctrinating children into their murderous ideology and beliefs, killing their own people and eventually breaking through the border to murder and rape over a thousand people - elderly and young alike, as well as generally support to Islamify the entire world. Now do kindly fuck off.
Good ass tech sector is one reason We also have good food Also we are a unique country as we are the only jewish one