Comment by kjksf
18 hours ago
> because Trump didn't like her
Such dishonest mis-characterization.
She's a UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine talking and writing about Israel-Palestine war in such a biased way that many, including me and US State Department led by Rubio, consider her a mouthpiece of Hamas. The system is what system does and person is what a person does.
You might agree or disagree about her de-facto supporting Hamas, or if US State Department (i.e. Marc Rubio) should sanction her for what she does but it's so dishonest to claim that it has anything to do with Trump.
It's fair to assign the blame for actions of the executive branch of the US government to Trump while he holds the office of president. The policy of sanctioning people for being too critical of Israel required his assent whether or not he made the call to apply it in this case or delegated that to a subordinate.
Especially problematic is that her actions would be unambiguously protected speech under US law if she did them in the USA.
So Trump can support war criminals like Netanyahu, but when someone says Israel shouldn't colonize Palestine and practice appartheid, she becomes a mouthpiece of Hamas? Get your facts together.
> that it has anything to do with Trump
That's an irrelevant detail right? The point is, she was debanked because someone in the US didn't like her, regardless of whom this person is.
Condemning the 7/Oct attacks as an unacceptable act of terrorism is "being a mouthpiece of Hamas"!!! Fucking _disgusting_, and many stronger words I'm trying my best to contain.
We're reaching levels of wretchedness that I've never thought possible. Truly no shame anymore.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...
This is her statement essentially saying Israel bombed a hospital that we now know as close to a fact as we can, that they did not and that in fact it was a palestinian rocket that fell on the hospital.
But lets say we can't know that for a fact.
She was still parroting Hamas's line without any ability to validate the statement.
This statement amongst many demonstrates that UN "Experts" have zero credibility in the statements they make.
So just to clarify, do you think it's bad to bomb hospitals or not?
1 reply →
If the best case you can make for your position is a retracted statement from over two years ago, consider that perhaps your position is not as strong as you think.
Anyway
> On Friday 13 October, Israel ordered hospitals and the population of northern Gaza to evacuate to southern Gaza. Because of insufficient beds in the southern Gaza Strip and no means of transporting patients, such as newborns in incubators or patients on ventilators, the evacuation orders were widely regarded as impossible to comply with.
> The Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem stated the hospital had received at least three evacuation warnings from the Israeli military on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.
After repeated warnings of imminent Israeli shelling, the immediate explanation for an explosion killing half a thousand people if obviously Israeli shelling. After a more thorough investigation, new facts come to light.
But regardless, all of this is moot! In what conceivable way are extra-judicial reprisals for opinions or public speeches an acceptable state of affairs in a democracy? This is what is being discussed, not the particulars of Albanese's reports.
There wasn't shame before. Just a sense that they couldn't push the envelope too much without losing US support. Now that has been shattered.