Listen to the words he actually said
He said ‘for Palestine to be free, from the river to the sea’.
That is a call for Islamic Imperialism, for the end of Israel and the killing of all Israelis including the 20% of Israelis who are Muslim.
Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 week agoHe’s calling for an end to the genocide, and for the Australian government to cease promoting genocide by doing two-way arms trade with the genocidal state.
Anything else is whataboutism.
Seagoon_@aussie.zone 1 week ago
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 week ago
He qualified what he meant by that statement in his very next breath. And it very much wasn’t a call for imperialism.
It doesn’t do anyone well to ignore the clearly stated intentions behind somebody’s words.
sqgl@beehaw.org 1 week ago
You are right but it wasn’t in the Crikey article of OP so go maybe easy on the commenter.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 week ago
Wasn’t it? Okay.
Its seagoon@aussie.zone, i hope they know, i know they’re a good person.
Lots of AZ regulars know each other’s views fairly well now. I’s actually surprised this was seagoon’s first comment in this thread tbh.
Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Is it Jewish imperialism when the Likud party in 1977 election manifesto said: “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”?
Or does that not count because whataboutism?
sqgl@beehaw.org 1 week ago
It is a good point however Likud took 5 dud attempted coalitions before coming back in power. Bibi was about to go on trial for embezzlement. They were not that popular.
Unfortunately while Likud are still not popular, political pundits say the Left would be very unlikely to form a coalition government in the next election.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Likud had become a lot more popular in Israel now that it’s fast tracking the extermination of Palestinians. Which makes sense given that even the most left wing mainstream position there is still pro-Genocide
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 week ago
No, listen to all the words he said that Palestinian freedom needs to come, not at the expense of other people.
sqgl@beehaw.org 1 week ago
Admittedly Crikey accidentally made it sound worse by taking it out of context but they may not have had access to the video (which has since been posted in this thread).
Nevertheless, a one-state solution cannot work because Hamas are not seeking what this guest is talking about.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
And a two state solution cannot work because Israel will not allow it and has basically already made it impossible.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Only Zionists could seriously try to claim that “calling for Palestinians to be free = calling for genocide”
letsgo@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Well let’s have a look at how well Jews are doing in other Muslim majority countries shall we?
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
So calling for Palestinians to be free = calling for genocide, because of unrelated countries.
sqgl@beehaw.org 1 week ago
The Post is literally summarised here with:
During the interview, Nasser Mashni made a pointed remark that it was time ‘for Palestine to be free, from the river to the sea’
That could well be why the interview was pulled. One could argue whether that slogan is sinister or not. If sinister they could have aired it without the slogan (but some would argue against platforming someone with that view).
These are the actual issues it seems, certainly not whataboutism.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 week ago
Ah interesting. That edited statement was not there when I first read the article. Frankly, I don’t believe the ABC’s claim. If it were true, that’s an answer that could easily have been provided in time for publication. They’ve come up with a post-hoc excuse after seeing how much play this story was getting. They had initially hoped to quietly acquiesce to the pro-genociders without attracting as much attention as the last time they did so.
sqgl@beehaw.org 1 week ago
And since they went through the bother of “accidentally” uploading it, why did they go through the extra bother to remove it?
They play both sides. Am sure they have their own internal battles of which side to support since they do not seem consistent to me.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 week ago
From what I can tell, the average ABC worker is on the right side of this. But ABC management seems to have a direct line to the genocide supporters. And when the Israel lobbyists tell Kim Williams (or formerly Ita Buttrose) to jump, he (she) asks “how high?” We only need look at the Lattouf case or, less sensationally, Sandy Gutman, to see that.
That’s why what repeatedly happens is the right thing happens at first. Then management gets wind of it, usually because of DMs from lobbyists, and orders a reversal.
In this case, I think what probably happened is it got uploaded as normal. Because that’s what they do. Any vaguely interesting segment of television gets uploaded to their website and iView. Then the Israel lobby saw it, saw that he was calling out their genocide, and got on the like to Williams or Hugh Marks or someone else on the board or management, and they sent down the instruction to nix it.