Hi Aries54

You will find almost identical arguments in opposition to Israel – that Palestine is the Holy Land that Allah gave to Muslims; that Jews have no right to be there; that the mass murder, rape, mutilation and hostage taking that Hamas committed in October 2023 are justified. But I think in both cases these are extreme views that are not representative of most supporters of either side – certainly not here in Australia.

I support a genuine two-state solution, but that requires both Israel and Palestine to have governments that agree to recognise each other and co-exist peacefully. Neither has, at the moment.

All sides in this ghastly conflict have many legitimate, deep and bitter grievances against the other/s which can never be fully redressed. But to return to the situation before 2023, with Hamas in control of Gaza, the UN providing long-term human services, and Israel and Egypt locking the borders to slow the rate at which terrorist groups re-arming would be a disaster for both Israel and Gazans. I fear that could be the outcome of a ceasefire now unless there is a clear and realistic plan for the future of Palestine when this war ends.

"Even with that shocking record, Wong and Dreyfus have trotted off to Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, calling for “unity” against anti-Semitism."

I agree, they shouldn't be wasting time going to those things.

And anyone would think ttbn cares more about Israel than Australia.
It's no some wonder people get staunchly opposed to Israeli influence, when others among us act like teenage girls at a Beatles concert.

'when this war ends'.
- Hasn't it been going for about a century now?

We need to remember that Albo and the ALP in general have a election coming up and are laser-focused on maintaining and retaining the Mohammadian vote which is critical in quite a few potentially marginal seats.

So pandering to the antisemite faction is required. When a nation imports a cohort who are both antithetical to the basic ethos of the nation and determined to remain aloof, it is inevitable that they will distort the electoral processes of that nation.

The Jews are less important electorally and thus there is little downside for the ALP from siding with the Mohammadians. So of course they side with the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia in UN votes. Of course they adopt anti-Israel policies in regards to the so-called Palestinians.

Currently Sydney is suffering a large and growing number of antisemitic attacks on Synagogues, Jewish schools, homes of Jews and actual Jews. The authorities are tut-tutting about how unAustralian it all is, but doing little, or at least not enough, to curb the racism.

All part of the electoral process.

But imagine if it was Mosques and Mohammadian schools and burka-clad women being similarly attacked. The PM would be crying islamophobia from the roof-tops and demanding troops in the streets to protect his constituency.

Gotta protect those phoney-baloney jobs. The best interests of Australia's international standing runs a distant second.

mhaze

I have never been able to get my head around politicians panting after a minority and pissing off the majority by doing so.

There are about 800,000 Muslims, and only around 100,000 Jews.

Sure. But what about the (roughly) 18 million voters who are neither?

There are seats overloaded with Muslims, but not that many. The major parties should give them up and concentrate on the majority of seats not beyond help and usefulness.

Its all about single issue voters as opposed to multi-issue voters.

Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that Albo suddenly decided to change course and go all in on Israel. How many voters would say "Oh I always wanted us to support Israel, I'll change my vote to ALP"? Very few I'd venture. But how many would be outraged by it and decide to stop supporting the ALP? Vast numbers of Mohammadians I'd suggest.

So such a policy would never happen. He'd lose lotsa votes from those who vote on the one issue of Palestine and gain very few votes from the other side.

Its not just this issue. There is a cohort for whom climate change is the deciding issue and they are all totally down with net zero. A much greater number aren't sold on net zero but it isn't a deciding issue for them. So both sides are pro net zero chasing those single issue voters.

There are an overwhelming percentage opposed to the massive immigration stance of both parties. But few of them will change their vote based on that one issue alone whereas those in favour of large numbers of immigrants will vote on that one issue. So what the vast majority wants is ignored because of what much more committed voters wants.

This is why we are seeing more and more teals and other independents who are able to identify electorates with a higher proportion of voters who will vote on single issues.

The great number of people vote on economic issues but this is more esoteric being based on perceptions on who is best able to run the economy or reduce cost of living or reduce interest rates. These are multi-issue voters who aren't swayed by a single policy.

And intermixed with all of that is the baked on voter - the 60% or so who will always vote Lib or Lab irrespective of policy, leadership or promises.