The Australian ‘for’ vote was a disgrace and further evidence that the Albanese government is really down on a country, Israel, that has always been an ally - currently fighting for its survival against terrorists, the terrorists supported by at least 75% of Palestinians.

The dumbcluck, Albanese, was still rabbiting on about the doomed (unwanted by Palestinian leadership, Hamas) two state nonsense last night. Like his idiotic education minister, he doesn't know that ‘from the river to the sea’ means the genocide of Jews.

It is my opinion that Australia is now an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel country; not individual Australians, but the government, which unfortunately speaks globally for our country, particularly through that appalling foreign minister, Wong.

Speaking of allies, Albanese seems to be shaking them off: America, now Israel, in his efforts to keep sweet with Communist China, a country directly opposed to our democracy, values and freedoms.

"Like his idiotic education minister, he doesn't know that ‘from the river to the sea’ means the genocide of Jews."

The best thing that could ever happen.

David

VK3AUU

A dreadful comment!

https://youtu.be/xzYwdaKQBx0?si=tfMEW2PEf6H8VNuP

“Western leaders warn that they will not support invasion of Rafah”.

The only two people mentioned are not actually ‘leaders’, and the ‘support’ is only moral, and therefore mere virtue-signalling.

Israel hasn't asked blabber mouths for their blessing, and unlike gutless Western countries, has the resolve - and the need - to do what is necessary to protect themselves by removing Hamas once and for all. Despite the shameful, barely-concealed anti-Semitism from countries who now have been shown up as frauds in their support for Israel, Israel will prevail through the sheer guts and determination lacking in those countries - or in their political classes at least.

“In God’s name, what could have convinced the Albanese government that this is the right time to muddy the waters on this vexed question and signal that our support for Israel’s right to exist is less than 100 per cent?”, writes commentator Peter O'Brien referring to the vote to admit a non-existent state, run by terrorists, to the UN.

Well, only fools ever thought that the Albanese government was ever “100 percent” with Israel. Wong's disgraceful comments and ‘advice’ to Israel was proof that they never were.

O'Brien suggested that at the very least the condition for a yes vote should have been the acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

Fat chance of that in the abominable United Nations and ragtag, undemocratic countries infesting the organisation!

Thirty of those countries don't even recognise Israel.

The UN won't give a democratic country like Taiwan observer status, but it welcomes a “dysfunctional ethnic rabble that calls itself Palestine”.

Binoy’s irritating condescension and excessive use of sneering adjectives can’t disguise the fact that he hasn’t made an argument that Palestine is in fact a state by any recognised criteria.

It does not have a permanent population (at least according to those advocating a “right of return”), a defined territory, or an identifiable government. These are not random or petty “club rules” designed to exclude members on arbitrary or unreasonable grounds, as the particularly tasteless comparison with an antisemitic town club implies. Further, more recent developments in international law suggest a new state can only be legitimate if it is recognised by the state which previously had sovereignty over that territory. Scotland will not become independent unless the UK Government agrees. Likewise, the Basques and Spain.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/asilp106&div=138&id=&page=

In the case of Israel and Palestine, this is especially important. The central plank of the two-state solution is mutual recognition – Israel accepts Palestine’s right to exist, and Palestine accepts Israel’s. Without this, we may have two states, but no “solution”. In the past, talks have often come tantalisingly close to reaching this mutual acceptance, but it was always the Palestinian side that backed away, unwilling to formally recognise Israel’s right to exist (the life expectancy of a Palestinian leader who did would probably not be great). Probably, the current Israeli government would not agree to recognise Palestine either. This does not mean a two-state solution is unattainable. I hope that once this horrible conflict is over, Hamas will no longer rule Gaza, Netanyahu will no longer be Israel’s PM and the Palestinian Authority will have new leaders who are not as corrupt and incompetent as the currrent ones. A real two-state solution might just emerge from those circumstances.

The UN vote makes this less likely to happen. If Palestinians attain statehood without formally recognising Israel’s right to exist, and Israel does not agree to respect its borders, this is not a two-state solution, it will lock in the conflict for many more generations.

_______
David, you are beneath contempt.