This is about Damien O'Connor's tweet. I was really surprised yesterday when I was listening to Carmel Sepuloni being interviewed on this, as the deputy leader of the Labour Party.
She was asked if he should apologise for his tweet and instead of saying yes, which is the only answer to give, she made excuses for him, saying he feels strongly about the situation as if that makes it OK.
Let me just remind you what he tweeted - "Palestinians have every right to do whatever they did on October 7th".
And I'll remind you what Hamas did that day. They raped and murdered innocent people.
It really doesn’t matter where you stand on this conflict. You can never, especially as a senior politician, say or think it’s okay for terrorists to kill teenagers out at a dance party just because you feel strongly about what the state of Israel is doing.
He should absolutely apologise for that.
I know that this is a conflict that is making people feel very upset and it’s scrambling people’s better judgment.
Just this week in Australia we had the case of a young reporter questioning why Australia doesn’t ban the Israeli flag like it bans the Hezbollah flag.
They’re not the same.
There is no equivalence between a state and a terrorist organisation, no matter how much you don't like what a state is doing.
But that’s exactly why Damien should apologise.
Because right now, when people are as angry and confused about what's going on, what we need is our major and serious political parties and our MPs, especially the senior ones holding senior portfolios like Associate Foreign Affairs spokesperson, to set an example for how to behave with decency.
Not the opposite.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
12 comments:
Absolutely agree there is never any justification for murdering & raping anyone.
A point of difference: Israel & Hezbollah are more alike than they’re not.
The difference is Israel, a State created by the West for their own ends, gets to commit state terror, as defined by international law. Terror that sanctioned & funded by the West. This funding allows their barbaric acts of terror to look more sophisticated, but it’s still terrorism.
"There is no equivalence between a state and a terrorist organisation, no matter how much you don't like what a state is doing.
But that’s exactly why Damien should apologise."
I wonder what Heather thinks the difference is? Violence for the furtherance of political ends has exactly the same effect, whether it is perpetrated by "state" forces or non-state actors.
How was Israel established? Terrorism. Terrorism (against Arabs, the British and anyone else who stood in the way of the Zionist project) committed by Jewish groups like the Irgun, Lehi etc. Some of those terrorists later became political leaders in Israel, most notably Yitzhak Shamir - who became the Prime Minister of Israel twice.
If Heather and others want to denounce "terrorism" and anything gained from it, then they must logically denounce Israel itself, because Israel was founded in terror and violence. It was only a week or so ago that Israeli intelligence blew up scores of Lebanese in an act of what can only be called "terrorism."
I doubt Heather is even aware of this, yet she adopts the position (so common by pro-Israel figures who know nothing about Israel's history) that the Jews can do no wrong and that any time they come under attack, it is an inexplicable and irrational outburst of violence.
Looked at from the perspective of cold hard reality, the Palestinians did "have every right to do whatever they did on October 7th."
If Israel and its supporters can't understand why the Arabs feel the way they do about the Israelis, perhaps the Israelis should look in the mirror once and a while.
Jews demanding apologies from people who say and think things Jews don't like needs to stop.
>"There is no equivalence between a state and a terrorist organisation, no matter how much you don't like what a state is doing."
True, and would apply to, inter alia, ISIS and al-Qaeda. But Hezbollah is not cut from the same cloth. It has often been called a 'state within a state' and it has become increasingly more like a legitimate state as the state of the Republic of Lebanon has become lowered to a farcical failed state by the antics of its rotten political elite. Hezbollah is not a 'terrorist organisation'.
"Hezbollah is not a terrorist organisation" says Barend. Well, I see we have our first new Tui billboard. So I guess shooting thousands of rockets at your neighbours is just a misunderstood act of brotherly love. Yeah right.
Oh, we do think we are so clever, don't we - Gotcha! says Anonymous. Actually the act of brotherly love we are seeing more of daily is the plastering the capital city of a neighbouring country that is not actively involved in the conflict.
Smart-arse comments (ostensibly) such as this merely portray the writer's prejudice and general lack of awareness of the complexities of the situation, If you want an adult conversation, tender an adult comment.
I.C. Clairly asks "How was Israel established? " and then conveniently ignores it was a creation of the United Nations in a powerful demonstration of the rule of law. No land was invaded. No land was stolen. Jewish settlers had by and large already purchased the land in accordance with the rules of the day from owners who saw no future in holding onto unproductive land in a desolate, arid corner of the defunct Ottoman Empire. Israel has every right to exist.
IC Clairly seems to be rather un-Clair about what happened in 1948 which was the forcible displacement of about three-quarters of a million Palestinians. Some of these people, and their many descendants, are now stateless refugees in neighbouring countries.
No, I am not justifying the October attacks of last year, but let's our basic facts right.
You are dead right, anon at 10:10.
Israel was legally, yes LEGALLY, created by the U.N.
With reference to Barend's remark about 3 million displaced Palestinians, it seems to me that if Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq had not attacked the new State of Israel in 1948, most of those displaced folk would still be living in peace and probably prosperity previously unheard of in that part of the world. Modern Israel gives citizenship to Arab and Jew alike. But refugees are are a fact of life in any war and there is an argument that most of the Arabs who fled left of their own accord or were pressured to leave by their fellow Arabs. Whatever the motivation, there's no doubt it has proved an immensely valuable propaganda tool for the Arab states who have every political interest in maintaining a high refugees population on Israel's borders. As usual, the people are being manipulated by their Islamic rulers.
The figure is three quarters of a million, not three million.
I'd like to see some evidence for the claim that "most of the Arabs who fled left of their own accord or were pressured to leave by their fellow Arabs". (The verb 'fled' implies anything but 'leaving of their own accord', but the real issue I have here is with the second half of the excerpt.)
Barend Vlaardingerbroek at 10:21am
I am well aware of the displacement of Palestinians by Israeli in 1948 (aka the Nakba). In fact, has it ever really ended?
The point I made is that proto-Israelis, for all intents and purposes, invented and perfected what most people think of when they here the word "terrorism." Many of them are national heroes and something akin to Founding Fathers (similar to how a George Washington was likely considered a "terrorist" by the British in the 1770s).
What can we take from this? That what is and what isn't a "terrorist" is essentially a matter of perceived interest, not any objective question. This is why the US and Israel frequently back what could easily be called "terrorist organisations" but they ignore this because these groups advance their goals.
Sorry, IC Clairly, I mixed you up with an Unknown commenting on your comment. My apologies.
Post a Comment