#…Albanese must reverse his recognition of the State of Palestine…#

Arabs love Democracy, and the suicidal fools that control its leavers. We, the sheep in the abattoir holding yards, can bleat into the foggy foggy dawn for change, but our destiny with the slaughterman is assured with Albarnese.

Why will Albanese NOT reverse his suicidal antisemitic love affair with Arab terrorists, and cancel out on his mission to incorporate Australia into a sister State of non existent Palestine?

The reason is as obvious as the mindset of a large percentage of suicidal Israelis, both in Israel and particularly its US diaspora, that harbour the same suicidal tendencies to surrender to Arab bullying: Witness the classic example of cowardice and fawning to the enemy, spearheaded by the US Democrats, of which Albanese is less than a ghost member, for your answer!

Open borders and the glorious state of Palestine, are key planks in the radical leftists psychosis.

So what’s the next question?

http://youtu.be/6IbrB51G8D0.

David S, can be his own interpreter for this show of overconfident denialism from Hamas executive, a living example of an Albanese honourable freedom fighter, Musa Abu Marzouk,
which denies any Hamas agreement to disarm in the US 20 point peace agreement.

From the subtle back tracking messages from the Whitehouse on page today, his statement of defiance would appear to hold water: We are being lied to as usual, but by whom?

The Palestinian State looks increasingly like the winning hand with Trumps blessing.

There was once an area of land called Palestine.
The people living there were Palestinians.
They occupied Palestine for a thousand years.
I think that is long enough to establish the right of occupancy.
But for a multitude of historical reasons, it was overtaken by other countries.
On the one hand we could say that if they were not able to defend their land, it is right that they lose control of it.
But a more modern view is that we look dourly on any country trying to take another by force, when motivated purely by greed.
Such as the action taking place in The Ukraine.
So which is it in Palestine?
If the latter, perhaps we should support the Palestinians' need to regain control.
A positive move in this direction is to accept their right to be recognised.

#Ipso Fatso

You state: "There was once an area of land called Palestine.
The people living there were Palestinians."

No - you are wrong. The term "Palestinians" was defined for the first time in 1964 in the PLO Charter:
"Article 6:
The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian.
Article 7:
Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine"

Under the 1923 Mandate for Palestine the Arabs living in Palestine were included in "the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" They obtained sovereignty in 1946 in the 78% of Palestine located east of the Jordan River - today called Jordan - whilst the Jewish people were granted the right by the League of Nations to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the remaining 22% of Palestine located west of the Jordan River.

The whole entire thing is bs David and you know it.

1936:The Palestinian War for Independence
http://youtu.be/43GNVLiOiFU

"Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese needs to reverse his decision to recognise the non-existent "State of Palestine" – if his apology to Jewish Australians on 22 January 2026 for failing to prevent the Bondi Massacre on 14 December 2025 - is to have any real meaning."

Stop trying to manipulate everyone and everything.

Israel caused its own problems with 30 years of wars attacking Muslim countries supporting Palestine under the Clean Break policy document and the war on terror which caused over 38 million migrants flooding into neighbouring countries and the West.

Israel is the problem, not Muslims nor Albanese.

Tell me David, did your family members fight the Ottomans in Gaza?
- Mine did and he earned a Distinguished Service Order fighting there in the 1st Australian Light Horse Regiment.

You lot have drenched that place in blood for over 100 years ever since.

#Armchair Critic

I have made it clear that I will not respond to Jew-haters of which you are one.That is your prerogative as is my choice.

Albanese's decision to recognise the fictitous non-existing State of Palestine based on misrepresenting UNGA Resolution 181 was disgraceful.
I have asked him to withdraw his decision but he has run for cover and closed up shop - as usually happens when people are found out.

All I do is simply have an opinion, nothing more, nothing less David.
Sure I have criticisms, nothing that isn't unfair in my opinion

It's you and others like you that think that people like me that hold a different opinion to you, one based on what many believe its valid merits - makes me some kind of terrorist that needs to be exposed, vilified and prosecuted.

And you'd rather play 'Cancel culture' and outlaw criticism, than engage with people in those criticisms, always playing the blame game, and accusing others of doing what you're doing.

Google? Were the palestinians promised self determination if they fought against the ottomans

AI Overview
Yes, Arab leaders, including those representing the inhabitants of the region that became Palestine, were promised independence and self-determination by the British in exchange for rebelling against the Ottoman Empire during World War I, primarily through the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence (1915–1916)

When was the Balfour Declaration signed again David?
1917 wasn't it?
About a week after my Great Grandfather earned his DSO in the Second Battle of Gaza.

Promises were made to the existing inhabitants in order to get them to rise up against the Ottomans prior to any official deal being made to make it a homeland for the Jewish people.

Why should I support the establishment of the Jewish state if the people already living there are denied their own self determination?
Why should I accept Israels right to exist if you can't live in peace?
Once I say 'I accept Israels right to exist' then the next phase of the braingame is 'Proclaiming Israel's a right to defend itself'
Which you've been using to justify atrocities forever.

Jewish and Zionist lobby groups in Australia have attacked and vilified people of conscience from speaking their minds as well as people reporting the truth, even going so far as criminalising speaking the truth.

[Cont.]

What does Bondi have to do with Albanese's stance on Palestine?
Care to explain that for me?

Google? how long has the labor government supported a 2 state solution

AI Overview
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has held a long-standing, decades-long commitment to a two-state solution, with its, and Australia's, support for the principle dating back to 1947.

It's seems in line with long standing policy positions older than Israel itself, as well as election promises.

Muslim leaders reveal Albanese said Palestinian recognition a first-term ‘priority’
http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/muslims-leaders-reveal-albanese-said-palestinian-recognition-a-first-term-priority-20240813-p5k21y.html

You expect the PM to go against electoral promises made to the Australian people, right?
Isn't that what you're 'demanding' David?

I bet Benjamin Netanyahu knew damn well diaspora Jews mite come under increased attack with what he was doing in Gaza for the last yew years, but that didn't stop him.
Why even blame everyone else.

Gaza caused Bondi.
Israel manufactures terrorists itself.
Zionist ideology, Israeli actions and willingness to silence any vilify any valid criticism manufactures anti-semites.
That's the ugly truth David.

Israel labels human rights organisations as terrorists.
They use human rights claims when it suits their ends and vilify them when they don't.

Israel blows up hospitals
Assassinates journalists
Murders pregnant women and kids
Attacks people in their homes
Denies people food, water and medicine
Starts conflict against all it's neigbours
Their leaders engage in hate filled religious rhetoric

You can't defend the indefensible.
All you to do is scream 'Anti-Semite!'

Collectively point the finger at everyone else
'It's those Jew hating UN! and all the other Jew-haters fault!'
But no-one should ever collectively criticise them, right.

All you have is double standards and hypocricies.

I wonder: will Armchair Critic's non-stop antisemitic "opinions" be targeted by Albanese’s hate speech legislation?

I don't think anyone would think that language would stay the same for a thousand years.
We know that words and pronunciation could and would change a lot over that time.
When we use a modern word to describe something, it should automatically encompass all the equivalents which were in use prior to that time.
Logical.

This is the expression of a general idea. It does not apply to anyone in particular.
When opinions are expressed, it reveals the thought processes at play in the writer's mind.
Which in turn leads to revealing the basic principles the person uses in his everyday life.
Which can be a worrying revelation.
Sometimes they reveal severe limitations on an understanding of self, and also of the world which surrounds the writer.
It reveals that some instinctive attitudes are over-emphasised in that person's mind.
So instead of having an even and healthy spread of instinctive reactions, these are out of balance.
Which as I said, is worrying.

It seems that today I am in reflective mood.
We need to be able to accept that what happens around us is average and thus 'normal'.
We should not be unduly upset by anything which takes place.
Even though there are almost daily reports of tragedy reported in the news.
We still need to keep an open and steadily calm outlook on life around us.
This doesn't mean that the wider community should not attempt to locate and isolate those who do harm.
Indeed: harm-doers should be actively and positively separated from the rest of society.
But to over-react to tragedies is not helpful.
To keep re-living the horror of past tragedies, after a period of mourning by those harmed, is also to be strongly avoided.
It shows a very unhealthy mental outlook.
Accept the past. Learn from it. Leave it behind.
We should not attempt to keep the past alive.

Hi AC,

David Singer is correct about how the UN defined a "Palestinian". The title was given equally to those with a thousand year pedigree and Egyptian labourers.

There is a lot more these days about CCP influence in the west. Like the Russian dictatorship, they are A grade Jew haters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4LBCAzWmNw

Anyway, what is the point of all the hatred when humanity traces back to a few thousand people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgsv-PNfea8

Not only should AC and a couple of others be careful about their antisemitism when the Act gets into gear, he/they will also need to start distinguishing between opinions and and lies; the lies being accusations of "genocide" by Israel, that Israel was starving children, etcetera.

They Left, believing in free speech for themselves, not so much for others, as well as the uniparty which introduced the Act, also need to understand that it can and will be used against their smug little selves too.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has blocked another Jew from entering Australia.

This one was due to speak at synagogues, his theme being that it is “time to stop being tolerant of those that are not tolerant of us”.

Burke cancelled his visa 3 hours before he was due to board his flight to Australia.

3,500 Gazans come in plus the ISIS brides. Not to mention our already in-Australia hate preachers. Will they go under the new Act? Probably not. The use of the hate Act will be at the Minister's discretion.

It is clear who Minister Burke and, therefore, the Albanese regime, tolerates and doesn't tolerate.

It's strange how society is beaten into submission by claims of offending Jews, meanwhile everything Zionist do is meant to prevent anyone criticising or intervening in their century long slaughter of innocents.

Watch that video,
The Fourth Palestine Arab Congress was held on June 25 1921, in Jerusalem.

THEY proposed a democratic solution.
An independent Palestinian government responsible to a nationally elected representative assembly.
A constitution guaranteeing civil rights for all - Muslims, Christians and Jews - so long as Jewish immigration as halted and Zionism rescinded.
Rejection of both the Balfour Declaration and continued British rule.

Seems reasonable, Britains response -
High Commissioner Herbert Samuel stated that no constitutional path that contradicted Zionist objectives would ever be permitted.
Balfour stated that "The weak point in our position is of course that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self determination."
Then, the firearms ordinance of 1922 - Disarm them.
104 years later and history repeats with stage 2 of the Gaza peace plan, disarm them.
No commitment to allowing Palestinians the right to decide their own future, just more lies to get the hostages back.

Nothing changes, just endless wars, death and no compromise on their Zionist objectives, Eretz Israel.

Hi ttbn,
Yes the changing laws are a concern, especially in their intentional vagueness, they want the laws harsh and vague and to publicly vilify anyone breaking them.
They want to scare the shite out of people so that they're too frightened to say how they really think about things.

Why did Tucker Carlson win Anti-semite of the year?
Did he kill more Jews than Naveed and Sajid Akram in Bondi?
No, they can use this attack to further their aims.
It's influencers speaking the truth THEY HATE.
Tucker Carlson just cares about America's future, that's all.

But I can't say that Zionists have to much control over media, even though Netanyahu openly said his biggest problem was TikTok and X, and even Sarah Hurwitz openly stated that they are losing their own kids to online images of Israels atrocities. It's not the killing that is the problem, it's the news coverage she implies, and this aligns with Israel assassinations of journalists and their families.

Google AI -
International Criminal Court (ICC): In November 2024, the ICC prosecutor requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, with allegations including the war crime of using starvation as a method of warfare.
International Bodies and Experts: The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory reported in September 2025 that Israel has committed acts of genocide, including using starvation as a tool. Furthermore, numerous UN Special Rapporteurs and human rights organizations have documented that Israel's blockade of aid into Gaza is a deliberate policy of starvation and a crime against humanity.

I think I'm pretty safe on that one.
It's just Pro-Israel Christian types who are too frightened to call out Israels behavior for what it is because the fear Genesis 12:3
When you drill it into young childs mind that if they don't love Jesus they will go to hell, it impacts their thinking all their lives.

Tell me what law have I broken now, I'm sure they'll make something up.
When do I ever say anything without a basis of merit?

ttbn,

Tony Burke hasn't been "blocking Jews". He's cancelled visas of specific individuals based on the character and social-cohesion criteria that have existed in migration law for years. Some of those individuals happen to be Jewish or Israeli, others are not.

That's not the same thing as targeting Jews, and conflating the two weakens your point.

Likewise, "3,500 Gazans" and "ISIS brides" are being waved around as if they entered under the same discretionary visa decisions. They didn't. Different cohorts, different legal frameworks, different ministers, different timeframes.

You might disagree with Burke's judgement, but claiming selective tolerance or antisemitic intent requires more than a list of unrelated cases stitched together after the fact.

If the concern is ministerial discretion being too broad, say that. If the concern is inconsistent application, show it. Right now this reads as inference piled on inference, not proof.

Antiseimitism isn't going to go away by pretending it's the other "team's" problem.

And you're still talking as though the hate speech laws will criminalise opinions. If you think they do, again, point to the provision that actually says so.

Yes, I read of the visa cancellation as well. I don't think that a thing has changed since October 7 regarding antisemitism. Very much a two- tier system for haters here as it is in the UK, where the people being targeted are those questioning why nothing is being done about some people promoting hatred and violence against Jews as well as a reluctance to investigate some people for alleged crimes.

While it's still safe to say so, "Saying what the problem is .... is Islamophobic".

I pinched that of the cover of Spectator Australia. The uniparty (we can't any longer distinguish between Labor and Liberal when it comes to the right to speak) sweats more over Islamophobia than it does over antisemitism.

Their anti-freedom Act and the guidelines for the upcoming Royal Commission don't
mention the real causes of Bondi: their own multiculturalism mania and careless mass immigration of inappropriate people and their nasty cultures.

Radical Islam is ignored. Over a million Muslims and only about 100,000 Jews in Australia might be the reason for that. 25% of Minister Burke's constituents are Muslim.

I have to repeat the hackneyed phrase that not all Muslims (obviously) are a threat to Australia; but I add that for as long as they have been here, NO Jews have threatened Australia, Australians or our culture. Jew fit in seamlessly wherever they live.

Australia is not threatened by guns, opinions or anything else (at the moment) by anything but RADICAL ISLAM and the uniparty's refusal to acknowledge this fact, resulting from their own stupid decisions in the past, and their lack of action since the threat became obvious.

Their latest stupidity has been to excuse what most people would call hate speech, if it comes from a religious text!

ttbn,

I'd suggest that the issue is one of treating people equally. As one blogger observed:

"Burke has repeatedly denied visas to Israeli and Jewish speakers deemed likely to “spread division or hate,” including Israeli politicians Simcha Rothman and Ayelet Shaked, and American-Israeli entrepreneur Hillel Fuld, scheduled to keynote a charity launch on Israeli innovation. Each of these individuals was engaging in legitimate dialogue on Jewish resilience, Israeli politics, or community empowerment. Yet Burke’s office barred them, while figures who openly promote hostility operate with impunity.

Take Wissam Haddad, whose sermons and public statements have repeatedly alarmed Jewish Australians, or public commentator Randa Abdel-Fattah, whose rhetoric has included comments such as: “To hell with you all. Every last Zionist. May you never know a second’s peace in your sadistic miserable lives,” and describing Zionists as having “no claim or right to cultural safety.” Neither Haddad nor Abdel-Fattah has faced scrutiny comparable to that applied to Jewish or Israeli speakers. The contrast is stark: some forms of extremism are aggressively policed; others excused, even normalised."

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/australia-cancels-another-israeli-speakers-visa/

I believe that the constitution needs to enshrine the equal treatment of all citizens. That way, if you believed that there was blatantly unequal treatment of citizens by government, there could be legal redress available to reverse the inequality. Equality should be a democratic foundation for Australia.

Fester,

You can't treat people equally - i.e all in the same way - because we are not all equal; we are not all the same in actions or beliefs. Not all people are equally intelligent, or good, or bad and so forth. It might be true that ‘all men are born equal in the eyes of God’; but after that, people vary greatly.

Civilisations have mores that the majority observe. People who offend against those mores cannot be treated in the same way as those who do not. There is no point to laws, rules and values if we are going to treat those who flaunt them the same way as those who abide by them.

ttbn,

By equality, I refer to how a society treats its citizens. It means no privilege based on heritage or race, having the law applied impartially, and having an equal vote. In the case of antisemitism, I do not believe that the law has been applied impartially.

I see the inequality of human beings as a good thing.

Fester,

You've addressed ttbn's caricature of equality well. But so far as antisemitism and the application of the law are concerned, you haven't cleared the evidentiary bar that you yourself have set.

To show unequal treatment, it isn’t enough to point to objectionable rhetoric on one side and visa cancellations on the other. Those examples sit in different legal categories, governed by different powers and thresholds. Visa decisions for foreign nationals under the Migration Act are not comparable to the regulation of domestic speech by citizens or residents.

If the claim is that antisemitism is being treated less seriously in law, the comparison that matters is the same conduct, under the same law, in the same legal position, producing different outcomes. That hasn’t been demonstrated yet.

None of this is to deny that antisemitism exists or that enforcement can feel inconsistent or inadequate. But there’s a difference between arguing that the law is too weak, too slow, or too cautious, and arguing that it is being applied partially. Only the latter requires proof of differential application.

If the concern is that ministerial discretion under migration law is too broad or politicised, that’s a fair criticism and worth having. But it doesn’t, by itself, establish unequal treatment of antisemitism under Australian law.

Hey Fester,
Remember I told you about a bloke I sometimes watch named Emil?
How I said he's nobody (no special background) but he's really cluey?

Well, he just threw out the big fat elephant in the room question.

Operation Epstein, US Elites Blackmail, activated since Trump refuses to attack Iran? Bring Oswald?
http://youtu.be/-RI6UrXJXRE

Here's the transcript of the first minute:

Hello my friends and welcome back.
Thank you very much for being with me again today.

Do you think there is a connection between Trump agreeing to attack Iran or not and the DOJ's dumping of some files and names about Jeffrey Epstein?
Do you think there's any connection between the blackmail operation
conducted by a foreign country I think through Epstein on the US elites and the decision to attack Iran must be done.
Do you think that that particular country with its special forces and its um security forces, intelligence agency, however you want to call it, do you think it started the operation you got to do it otherwise
would destroy your reputation?
Do you think that this is the moment one of them under which
Epstein worked for this? So the US will attack Iran.
There is if you don't attack Iran, you you (&) you there will be some leaks in the media about you you (&) you or let's start with your friends first. your friends, your friends, (&) your friends being in Epstein files.
Do you think that's what it is?
...

I find myself thinking... maybe.