Comment by andrepd
1 month ago
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.
I'm responding to "being a mouthpiece of Hamas" that you reject. This is one case out of many where she parroted their line completely without any critical thinking. Hence, why I think its a fair statement.
With all that said, I doubt (be happy to be proven wrong) you complained at all when europe and the US "extra-judicially" sanctioned Israelis (I personally don't care that they got sanctioned). Heck, I'd hazard to say that you would welcome "extra-judicial" sanctions on many Israelis. You believe its a "genocide", so if the only available tool to stop the "genocide" is extra-judicial sanctions, would you really say "no, we can't do that!". I don't believe you would.
Or what about all the russian oligarchs that have been sanctioned. did that bother you to say anything? Again, doesn't bother me that they got sanctioned, but if you want to die on the "extra-judicial" hill, I believe you are going to get buried by all the bodies of all the sanctions you ignored that you tacitly supported.
as an aside your "obvious" explanation, was obviously not true in retrospect, so why was it so obvious that one had to make a statement that one in retrospect obviously did not have the information to make. to me its just as obvious that she doesn't care about the truth.