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.
And you want what? Israel to roll over and allow continuous repeats of Oct 7 (which Hamas vowed to do, on the record)?
Here is a more mature argument you could have used against me: How would Israel know if all of Hamas surrendered anyhow? What could possibly count as a surrender?
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.
Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri… [in an] interview, which aired on a Libyan television channel… referred with indifference to the number of Palestinians who have been killed in the Gaza war, calling this “the price we have to pay,” and remarked that the women of Gaza will compensate for the loss by “producing” more babies than those who have been killed.
ProPals throw accusations of “whataboutism” when someone tries to discuss nuance as often as Zionists throw “anti-Semitism” when they are criticised.
The two points remain unaddressed by you:
Hamas hijack aid and are complaining now that IDF wants to control the distribution to prevent this.
Hamas could surrender for a swift end to the war.
everything Hamas does is also lsrael’s fault. lsrael created Hamas. They funded Hamas deliberately as a way to destabilise the Palestinians.
Indeed. Bibi favoured Hamas over Fatah and for cynical reasons as you point out. You are not talking to a one-eyed football mentality person.
Hamas (being right wing fascists like Likud) should have known the consequences of Oct 7 well in advance but they naively thought they could rally Arab neighbours to battle like in the past.
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.
Do you really need to resort to name calling and bullying? There are reasonable arguments to be had.
You call it genocide but I do not accept your redefinition of the word. Do you call Russia’s war on Ukraine genocide? Russia targets purely civilian towns with drones and missiles (unlike Gaza situation) but it isn’t genocide. I can acknowledge that despite being pro-Ukraine.
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!”
And you want what? Israel to roll over and allow continuous repeats of Oct 7 (which Hamas vowed to do, on the record)?
Here is a more mature argument you could have used against me: How would Israel know if all of Hamas surrendered anyhow? What could possibly count as a surrender?
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.
Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri… [in an] interview, which aired on a Libyan television channel… referred with indifference to the number of Palestinians who have been killed in the Gaza war, calling this “the price we have to pay,” and remarked that the women of Gaza will compensate for the loss by “producing” more babies than those who have been killed.
https://www.memri.org/reports/gazans-furious-hamas-it-has-nothing-contempt-victims-war-and-prepared-sacrifice-us-all
ProPals throw accusations of “whataboutism” when someone tries to discuss nuance as often as Zionists throw “anti-Semitism” when they are criticised.
The two points remain unaddressed by you:
Hamas hijack aid and are complaining now that IDF wants to control the distribution to prevent this.
Hamas could surrender for a swift end to the war.
Indeed. Bibi favoured Hamas over Fatah and for cynical reasons as you point out. You are not talking to a one-eyed football mentality person.
Hamas (being right wing fascists like Likud) should have known the consequences of Oct 7 well in advance but they naively thought they could rally Arab neighbours to battle like in the past.
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.
Do you really need to resort to name calling and bullying? There are reasonable arguments to be had.
You call it genocide but I do not accept your redefinition of the word. Do you call Russia’s war on Ukraine genocide? Russia targets purely civilian towns with drones and missiles (unlike Gaza situation) but it isn’t genocide. I can acknowledge that despite being pro-Ukraine.
Holocaust denier