He’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.
The Post is literally summarised here in my Lemmy feed 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.
EDIT: Turns out this Crikey article is not paywalled (unlike most of Crikey). So I read it and platforming should not be an issue since it says the guy is a regular.
The closing paragraphs are:
Crikey received a statement from the ABC on Wednesday morning, a day after this story was published, which said the interview had been uploaded to the broadcaster’s website and iview accidentally.
“The original content was done as a live-to-air interview as part of broader coverage and was not intended to be published as a stand-alone clip. It was mistakenly uploaded and when that was noticed it was taken down,” a spokesperson said.
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.
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.
Maybe. I couldn’t find the report if it did, but that’s not a huge surprise given how hard this is to google for.
I’d be extra interested if it happened under the current Media Watch host, who has ties to zionist organisations (he studied at Moriah College, a member of the zionist “Jewish Communal Appeal”), and started on Media Watch in February or March this year.
It was under Besser, in just his second episode. They investigated the way ABC management handled criticism over Antoinette Lattouf’s social media comments, which I guess you’re already familiar with given you referenced this previously.
From what I can tell, the average ABC worker is on the right side of this.
The average worker is Left wing and therefore agrees with Hamas’ position. I am Left but often disagree with them on the Gaza issues. In fact their dodgy reporting on Al Ahli hospital early on lost them their credibility.
I have not seen any news organisation consistently report “fairly”. The only example of even-handedness was a pair of entries from a blogger a couple of months into the war (probably still valid - let me know if it has dated)…
I think it’s very important to start from the place of acknowledging that nothing Hamas does or has done is relevant. Whether someone condemns Hamas or wholeheartedly supports them, or (as most people probably do) sit somewhere in between, really doesn’t matter. Because genocide is absolutely, totally, inexcusable. Even if Hamas were committing genocide themselves, that does not excuse Israel’s genocide. And the fact is that Hamas isn’t committing genocide. They literally could not if they wanted to. They haven’t the power necessary for it.
Any organisation that is censoring people who accuse Israel of genocide, or who play whataboutism games by trying to ensure that condemnations of Israel are always followed by condemnations of Hamas, are abetting genocide.
Stop the whataboutism. Stop defending genocide. Nothing Hamas does or could do can defend genocide.
But if you really want to play that game: everything Hamas does is also Israel’s fault. Israel created Hamas. They funded Hamas deliberately as a way to destabilise the Palestinians. They create oppressive conditions in which a militant organisation like Hamas is bound to thrive. Everything that Hamas does is a predictable outcome of Israel’s actions, and the ultimate blame lies squarely on them.
But again, that’s irrelevant. Because even if Hamas’s own actions weren’t Israel’s fault, Israel’s actions obviously are. Murdering children, doctors, and journalists by the hundreds are classic fascist moves. Displacing people en mass from their homes is genocide. Collective punishment is a war crime. Deliberately starving people is a war crime. Stop defending genocide.
The accepted definition of genocide isn’t what you think it is. It isn’t what I thought it was either, until I educated myself.
I can’t see any way to argue that blocking food to a large population of civilians is NOT genocidal. It doesn’t require active military action to meet agreed UN criteria:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Oh damn. I thought you were a reasonable person with different views until this comment. It took you an impressively long time to come out with the explicit genocide denial.
I’m surprised Beehaw of all places allows genocide denial, tbh.
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.”?
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.
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
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.
Funny how Hamas’s alleged opposition to the one state solution makes you furiously support genocide and declare that it’s their own fault, but Israel’s actual opposition to the two state solution makes you shrug and go “horrible situation really, guess we have no choice but to exterminate the Palestinians”
Furiously? I am not the one making ad hominem attacks. I am not putting words in your mouth. I declared no such thing. I bring up uncomfortable facts.
There is no such thing as a mainstream political bloc. 5 coalitions were tried and quickly failed resulting in renewed elections before Netanyahu won. There are Left leaning Israeli parties (who value liberalism, unlike Hamas) but I am pretty sure they don’t want to vacate the Levant either which is what these discussions always seem to come down to.
Jews aint leaving. Arabs aint leaving. Get real. I don’t know how they can make it work. Neither of us has a solution.
Furiously? I am not the one making ad hominem attacks. I am not putting words in your mouth.
I bring up uncomfortable facts.
No, you deny the uncomfortable facts while bringing up convenient lies.
I’m not interested in being civil to a genocide denier.
There are Left leaning Israeli parties
Yeah, and they’re also pro-genocide.
Neither of us has a solution.
Your solution seems to be insisting that nothing else is possible except letting the genocide continue, while you endlessly try to divert to blaming Hamas and excusing Israel’s exponentially worse crimes
He’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.
The Post is literally summarised here in my Lemmy feed 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.
EDIT: Turns out this Crikey article is not paywalled (unlike most of Crikey). So I read it and platforming should not be an issue since it says the guy is a regular.
The closing paragraphs are:
Crikey received a statement from the ABC on Wednesday morning, a day after this story was published, which said the interview had been uploaded to the broadcaster’s website and iview accidentally.
“The original content was done as a live-to-air interview as part of broader coverage and was not intended to be published as a stand-alone clip. It was mistakenly uploaded and when that was noticed it was taken down,” a spokesperson said.
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.
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.
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.
Didn’t Media Watch report on this exact phenomenon earlier this year?
Maybe. I couldn’t find the report if it did, but that’s not a huge surprise given how hard this is to google for.
I’d be extra interested if it happened under the current Media Watch host, who has ties to zionist organisations (he studied at Moriah College, a member of the zionist “Jewish Communal Appeal”), and started on Media Watch in February or March this year.
It was under Besser, in just his second episode. They investigated the way ABC management handled criticism over Antoinette Lattouf’s social media comments, which I guess you’re already familiar with given you referenced this previously.
Oh nice, thanks. Just watched that segment and he really didn’t pull his punches.
Yeah I was already familiar, from other news articles and from watching some of the case (the court case was broadcast on YouTube).
The average worker is Left wing and therefore agrees with Hamas’ position. I am Left but often disagree with them on the Gaza issues. In fact their dodgy reporting on Al Ahli hospital early on lost them their credibility.
I have not seen any news organisation consistently report “fairly”. The only example of even-handedness was a pair of entries from a blogger a couple of months into the war (probably still valid - let me know if it has dated)…
https://yoavfisher.medium.com/israel-has-lost-the-war-d7b9b3934f73
https://yoavfisher.medium.com/hamas-has-lost-the-war-5bea9813fcf3
I think it’s very important to start from the place of acknowledging that nothing Hamas does or has done is relevant. Whether someone condemns Hamas or wholeheartedly supports them, or (as most people probably do) sit somewhere in between, really doesn’t matter. Because genocide is absolutely, totally, inexcusable. Even if Hamas were committing genocide themselves, that does not excuse Israel’s genocide. And the fact is that Hamas isn’t committing genocide. They literally could not if they wanted to. They haven’t the power necessary for it.
Any organisation that is censoring people who accuse Israel of genocide, or who play whataboutism games by trying to ensure that condemnations of Israel are always followed by condemnations of Hamas, are abetting genocide.
This meme summarises it nicely.
That meme ignores Hamas hijacking aid.
Hamas could just surrender.
ah yes “stop making me hit you, just do what I say! this is all your fault!”
Stop the whataboutism. Stop defending genocide. Nothing Hamas does or could do can defend genocide.
But if you really want to play that game: everything Hamas does is also Israel’s fault. Israel created Hamas. They funded Hamas deliberately as a way to destabilise the Palestinians. They create oppressive conditions in which a militant organisation like Hamas is bound to thrive. Everything that Hamas does is a predictable outcome of Israel’s actions, and the ultimate blame lies squarely on them.
But again, that’s irrelevant. Because even if Hamas’s own actions weren’t Israel’s fault, Israel’s actions obviously are. Murdering children, doctors, and journalists by the hundreds are classic fascist moves. Displacing people en mass from their homes is genocide. Collective punishment is a war crime. Deliberately starving people is a war crime. Stop defending genocide.
You can’t be “left” when you’re pro-genocide
They aren’t very efficient with “genocide” are they? Bad shots you reckon?
It is a terrible war without resorting to hyperbole. I understand it is for PR but surely we can be better than that on Lemmy?
The accepted definition of genocide isn’t what you think it is. It isn’t what I thought it was either, until I educated myself.
I can’t see any way to argue that blocking food to a large population of civilians is NOT genocidal. It doesn’t require active military action to meet agreed UN criteria:
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Oh damn. I thought you were a reasonable person with different views until this comment. It took you an impressively long time to come out with the explicit genocide denial.
I’m surprised Beehaw of all places allows genocide denial, tbh.
Holocaust denier
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.
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.
You are right but it wasn’t in the Crikey article of OP so go maybe easy on the commenter.
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.
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?
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.
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
No, listen to all the words he said that Palestinian freedom needs to come, not at the expense of other people.
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.
And a two state solution cannot work because Israel will not allow it and has basically already made it impossible.
Likud certainly don’t want it unfortunately. Horrible situation.
No mainstream Israeli political block wants it.
Funny how Hamas’s alleged opposition to the one state solution makes you furiously support genocide and declare that it’s their own fault, but Israel’s actual opposition to the two state solution makes you shrug and go “horrible situation really, guess we have no choice but to exterminate the Palestinians”
Furiously? I am not the one making ad hominem attacks. I am not putting words in your mouth. I declared no such thing. I bring up uncomfortable facts.
There is no such thing as a mainstream political bloc. 5 coalitions were tried and quickly failed resulting in renewed elections before Netanyahu won. There are Left leaning Israeli parties (who value liberalism, unlike Hamas) but I am pretty sure they don’t want to vacate the Levant either which is what these discussions always seem to come down to.
Jews aint leaving. Arabs aint leaving. Get real. I don’t know how they can make it work. Neither of us has a solution.
No, you deny the uncomfortable facts while bringing up convenient lies.
I’m not interested in being civil to a genocide denier.
Yeah, and they’re also pro-genocide.
Your solution seems to be insisting that nothing else is possible except letting the genocide continue, while you endlessly try to divert to blaming Hamas and excusing Israel’s exponentially worse crimes
Only Zionists could seriously try to claim that “calling for Palestinians to be free = calling for genocide”
Well let’s have a look at how well Jews are doing in other Muslim majority countries shall we?
So calling for Palestinians to be free = calling for genocide, because of unrelated countries.