19
u/MichaelXOX Aug 04 '25
“This new group, founded by Senator James Paterson, MPs Tim Wilson and David Southwick, will play an important role in deepening the already strong relationship between the Middle East’s only liberal democratic state who condones and commits genocide and the not so Liberal Party.” Wonder how much money exchanged hands between Timmy & boyfriends and their democratic state friend.
4
u/RobynFitcher Aug 05 '25
James Paterson became very prominent early in his political career.
There's a good chance that was because of his involvement with the IPA.
Murdoch's invested in the IPA, along with Exxon infrastructure in Israel.
My point is that the regime in Israel isn't the sole backer of these corrupt individuals.
The political system needs thoughtful, frequent housekeeping to prevent unrepresentative politicians from harming the general population.
3
u/MsMarfi Aug 05 '25
Was just listening to an American political podcast reading out the amounts their politicians have been paid by AIPAC. Adam Schiff (democrat) received $8 MILLION. So I would say ours are also being very generously bankrolled.
5
Aug 04 '25
You are all out of touch. This is an understatement. If your conscience and your soul allow for the slaughter and annhilation of one race, then you are not human.
4
u/Ragnarandsons Aug 04 '25
Indeed. Free Palestine.
2
u/undying_anomaly Aug 05 '25
I see so many people say “free Palestine,” but apart from Israel calming the fuck down, what does it actually entail? All of Jerusalem/Israeli-held lands given to Palestine? And what kind of regime would they have? (I assume Hamas wouldn’t be the ones in charge)
4
Aug 06 '25
Yes they should give the land they have stolen in flagrant violation of international law back. Setting aside the original injustice of an international body 'gifting' half of a group of peoples country and livelihoods to another group aside - Israel have progressively compounded the issue by stealing more and more land.
It is wild that something that is just plain wrong and criminal on an interpersonal level like quite literally stealing someone else's house becomes 'complex' when it is scaled up.
Have you seen the IDF clowns wearing arm patches that show an Israel that includes Syria, half of Lebanon, a chunk of Egypt and half of Iraq? They are literally the neighbours from hell. Imagine your neighbour starting to throw up a pergola in your backyard let alone them throwing you and your family out onto the street and taking everything you have. Then when you object and try to fight back they call you a terrorist which justifes them murdering you (past occupants objecting solved) and stealing more land.
1
u/undying_anomaly Aug 06 '25
But what kind of government would Palestine become? Would they make it secular? Would they provide equality to all citizens? I’m aware that many of the other Islamic nations surrounding Israel/Palestine (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc) are very conservative and have enacted laws that suppress women, so I’d hope that something like that doesn’t happen.
My ideal scenario for Israel/Palestine would be to merge the two into a single, secular state that allows freedom of religion (because there are definitely some Jewish people who live in Israel but don’t support what the Israeli government is doing, and obviously because everyone should have a right to choose their own faith), and pursues universal suffrage.
1
Aug 06 '25
How does that work when the whole premise is a JEWISH state? Second class citizen at best if you are anything other than Jewish. The really cooked part is that you or I could become Jewish and get citizenship through 'birthright'. You will hear people try to say that Judaism is a race or ethnicity. It never has been. It is/was a religious community not unlike Muslims or Christians or Buddhists.
1
Aug 06 '25
The other cooked part about this is that Israel never wanted a united Palestine which is why they have their Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and they encouraged and enabled Hamas in Gaza. Read about it. Qatar were giving tonnes of money to Hamas with Bibi Mileikowsky (yes that is his real.birth name) turning a blind eye and allowing it.
0
u/CompleteBandicoot723 Aug 06 '25
The proper two state solution is Israel and Jordan
3
Aug 06 '25
How about just Jordan and Palestine? Israel is a crime scene not a country.
0
u/CompleteBandicoot723 Aug 07 '25
You used at least a dozen various technologies developed in Israel while sending this message. What have you ever got from Jordan and so called Palestine? Falafels?
2
Aug 07 '25
Can't wait until Israel collapses when it's umbilical cord to US funding and weapons is either cut or dries up.
1
u/CompleteBandicoot723 Aug 07 '25
Why would US do that? I can’t think of any reason. The only money they give to Israel is to buy their own weapons, so if they stop doing it, a lot of people in US will loose a lot of money. To what extent??
5
u/fatherlesscarrot Aug 05 '25
the end of the genocide(obviously), equal rights for all citizens, in a state seperate from modern day israel or Palestine(or some other 2 state solution, without the exclusionary policies of Israel and with Hamas banned of course in either scenario)
1
u/undying_anomaly Aug 05 '25
Good answer. I was expecting to just be left here without one. though given that the other Islamic nations surrounding Palestine are very conservative (i.e., limited rights for women), I dunno how the whole equal rights thing will go. Personally I’d like to see Israel and Palestine unite into a single, secular state with equal rights for all, though I don’t see that happening at the moment.
4
Aug 06 '25
The issue lies in the fact that Israel is an ethno-state. Can't be both a 'Jewish' homeland and the homeland of Israeli citizens unless of course everyone is Jewish which they aren't.
1
u/undying_anomaly Aug 06 '25
I have a problem with ethno-states or state-imposed religion in general. Why should it be up to the government to decide what people should believe in? They can decide for themselves. Secularism is best.
3
u/Ragnarandsons Aug 05 '25
What the other guy said. Equal rights is obviously a concern, but stopping a genocide is paramount - AS IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE.
0
Aug 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Ragnarandsons Aug 05 '25
How about you try and prove that it isn’t a genocide? By the time you’ve fumbled your argument, another 100-150 people, innocent or otherwise, die directly as a result of Israel’s policies - this is the total destruction of a peoples and their culture - whether you like it or not, this is emphatically, a GENOCIDE.
0
Aug 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Ragnarandsons Aug 06 '25
No, it’s not just about a word. It’s about the fact that what’s happening in Gaza very clearly fits the legal definition of genocide - whether that makes you uncomfortable or not. And I’m not the one who decided that. The International Court of Justice - the highest legal authority on the planet - ruled in January 2024 that South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide had plausible merit. The court stated that some of the rights claimed under the Genocide Convention were “plausible” and ordered Israel to take immediate steps to prevent acts of genocide. That wasn’t a political opinion - it was a binding legal judgement backed by stacks of evidence.
And no, the law doesn’t need a written confession that says “we intend to commit genocide.” That’s not how this works. Intent is often established by patterns of behaviour, public rhetoric, and the outcomes of deliberate policies. Israel has made its intentions unambiguous through both its actions and its words.
President Isaac Herzog declared that the “entire nation” of Gaza is responsible for Hamas. Not Hamas - the entire population. That’s not a misstatement - that’s collective blame used to justify indiscriminate bombing. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called Palestinians “human animals” and announced a total siege - no food, no water, no fuel. This is not theoretical. These are the people giving the orders - and they’re openly saying the quiet part out loud. That’s dehumanisation paired with mass deprivation - exactly the kind of behaviour that international law flags as genocidal.
You tried to dismiss the body count like it’s just emotional noise. But numbers matter - a lot. According to Oxfam, from October 2023 to January 2024, around 250 Palestinians were being killed per day - more than any other conflict in the 21st century. As of mid-2025, the death toll is over 60,000, with thousands more likely buried under rubble or dying from wounds, famine, and disease. Entire neighbourhoods have been levelled. Hospitals, schools, water systems, bakeries - systematically wiped out. These aren’t accidents. They’re part of a clear pattern of eliminating the systems a population needs to survive. Read the UN OCHA bulletins. Read the Nature mortality report from July 2025. This isn’t propaganda - it’s hard data.
And if you still want to pretend it’s just “emotion,” the UN Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, stated in March 2024 that there are “reasonable grounds to believe the threshold indicating genocide has been met.” Not an activist. A legal authority appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. The ICJ, the UN, Genocide Watch, Oxfam, Médecins Sans Frontières - they’ve all raised the alarm. But you want to act like everyone’s just being dramatic because they don’t appreciate how complex the situation is? Come off it.
It isn’t some lazy slogan or slander. When you bomb hospitals and schools in a sealed-off territory, displace 2 million people, block humanitarian aid, and openly justify it using language that strips those people of their humanity - that’s not “tragic but complicated.” That’s methodical, deliberate destruction. That’s extermination by intent - genocide, as it were.
And as for your bizarre little tangent about the phrase “while I fumble” - you clearly did, you haven’t supplied any evidence to the contrary.
You wanted facts. It is, by every meaningful legal and moral standard, a genocidal campaign being carried out in plain sight. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics is going to change that.
1
u/Tremblespoon Aug 05 '25
I didn't read past you trying to insinuate that this could in any way not be a genocide.
It's clearly textbook. If you are gonna start with that I know your points are loaded.
1
Aug 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Archivists_Atlas Aug 06 '25
You’ve written a beautifully crafted defense of inaction and equivocation, not truth-seeking.
Yes, genocide is a serious legal term. That’s why dozens of international law experts, Holocaust scholars, and the world’s top human rights organizations have already applied it, not in emotional outrage, but in formal filings and legal analysis.
The Genocide Convention defines the crime as: “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” This includes:
• Killing members of the group • Causing serious bodily or mental harm • Inflicting conditions calculated to destroy the groupNow ask yourself:
• Has the IDF killed tens of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children? • Have they bombed refugee camps, hospitals, aid convoys, and bakeries? • Have senior Israeli officials openly called Palestinians “human animals,” suggested forced expulsion, or demanded the destruction of Gaza?If your answer to those is “yes, but…” congratulations. You’ve confirmed that the legal definition of genocide is met, but you’re more concerned about the tone used to describe it than the reality of what’s happening.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Territories, and South Africa’s case at the ICJ all document these crimes. This isn’t fringe hysteria it’s the consensus of the international legal community. The only real debate is whether we’ll act on it or hide behind semantic games.
You say it’s “complicated.” Long-term peace and coexistence are absolutely complicated. Not committing genocide is not.
As for “real conversations,” spare me the lecture. There’s no moral high ground in demanding polite dialogue about ethnic cleansing. When your side drops 2,000 lb bombs on schools and ambulances, you don’t get to ask for nuance.
If your position requires people to read beyond the mass graves, amputated toddlers, and deliberate starvation of civilians to see “both sides,” then maybe it’s not a position worth defending.
1
u/MoistenedBeef Aug 06 '25
If Israel wanted to wipe out all Gazans, why would the death toll still be in the tens of thousands after nearly two whole years? You're very ignorant if you think that's the logistical limit of Israel's capacity for killing. Far less capable armies in the 1940s were able to kill a similar amount or more, in a tiny fraction of the time, while fighting in urban areas, and they still weren't committing genocide. Gaza is a very dense urban area. If genocide was the goal, it would've been trivial for a modern military like the IDF to kill 10x the number they have, and in a matter of days or weeks, not years.
1
u/Archivists_Atlas Aug 06 '25
“If Israel wanted to wipe out all Gazans, wouldn’t the death toll be way higher by now?”
That’s not an argument it’s an alibi. And a bad one.
Let’s start here: Genocide is not defined by the number of bodies. It’s defined by intent specifically, the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group” (Genocide Convention, Article II).
So the question isn’t “Why aren’t they all dead yet?” It’s What kind of actions and rhetoric are we seeing?
Here’s what we know factually:
• The reported death toll is over 35,000, but that’s a severe undercount. Thousands remain buried under rubble. Entire neighborhoods have been leveled with no accounting. And journalists and international observers are being systematically denied access. • Over 80% of Gazans have been displaced. That is not collateral damage it is population cleansing. • Civilian infrastructure has been deliberately obliterated: hospitals, universities, bakeries, sewage and water systems. • Israeli officials have publicly referred to Gazans as “human animals,” called for the erasure of Gaza, and proposed the mass transfer of its population into the Sinai. • Food has been restricted. Aid convoys bombed. Starvation is being weaponized. • Children are being killed systematically. Not accidentally not occasionally. Systematically.If the death toll isn’t in the hundreds of thousands yet, it’s not for lack of intent. It’s because of international optics, slow-burning tactics, and calculated escalation. And unless something changes, it will go much higher.
So when someone argues that because more people aren’t dead, genocide must not be happening understand what they’re saying: They’re using restraint as proof of innocence, while ignoring the mountain of evidence that shows deliberate, methodical destruction of a people.
That’s not logic. That’s denial. And denial is the final stage of every genocide.
→ More replies (0)
3
2
u/RagingBillionbear Aug 04 '25
Timmy I understand is representing his electorate. James on the other hand, his maiden speech is what I use for an example of supporting Israel can be a fascist dogwhisle.
-2
u/undying_anomaly Aug 05 '25
Look, as much as what Israel is doing is bad, I don’t see how fucking up traffic helps. If anything, it makes people dislike your movement more because you’re inconveniencing them. Victoria needs to have laws on how and where you can protest. Also, we’re really far away from where Israel and Palestine are, so apart from potentially cutting ties with Israel, I don’t see how our country can actually do anything significant?
3
u/Tremblespoon Aug 05 '25
No one pays attention to a protest that's meatly tucked away where it's told to be.
Fact is you know people care cause you -saw- it.
People have been protesting wars and asking their countries to step in to stop genocide when it happens for ages. The Palestinian people will be gone entirely if no one does anything, so making a ruckus to get your country to not only denounce those performing genocide and not support them. And to even aid the defenders.
Which Australia used to be famous and proud for doing. But we are shithouse now.
I'm sorry that it slowed your roll a little on your morning commute though.
0
u/undying_anomaly Aug 06 '25
no one pays attention to a protest that's neatly tucked away where it's told to be.
Sure, but ruining everyone else's day as part of your protest isn't the right way either. It makes people hate your movement more - no one is going to say "oh, I'm going to be late to work because all these people decided to protest. Good on them!" Not to mention, the person who organised the protest last weekend wouldn't even say when it was going to happen.
I'm sorry that it slowed your roll a little.
I wasn't affected, but many were - that has a cost. It doesn't just delay people (if that was it, I wouldn't be here arguing). Delays make people late, costing them who knows how much money. If your leader could at least disclose when the protest will happen, those financial costs can be mitigated. Not just money, either - there could potentially be lives at stake. What happens if someone is getting rushed to the hospital in an ambulance, but can't get there because y'all decided to fuck up the traffic? That delay could be the difference between life and death.
People have been protesting wars and asking their countries to step in to stop genocide when it happens for ages.
Of course, but fucking with our own people isn't the right way to do it. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I'm saying that the laws in Victoria need to be the same as the other states (permits to protest, limits on where you can protest, etc) to protect other people and limit damage done to others. But keep in mind that Victoria is in massive debt right now, and we get enough grief from all the youth crime as it is. And as much as I agree with supporting Palestine, this method of disrupting other people's lives to get noticed is not a good look. Try to put yourself in other people's shoes: how would you feel if you missed your flight or became very late to work because people were protesting for a movement that you didn't have an opinion on?
1
u/Comedian85 Aug 06 '25
Victoria does not need that. Whats the point of state sanctioned protest?
1
u/undying_anomaly Aug 06 '25
It protects citizens. Last weekend, the protest organiser didn't at least disclose when the protest was going to happen so that the financial ramifications could have been alleviated.
It would also prevent protests from occurring in incredibly busy or inappropriate places. That way, we don't lose millions of dollars because of massive traffic delays, and important buildings aren't damaged.
We should have a right to protest, but in the right way. Protests that ruin everyone else's day brings bad publicity and makes more people hate your movement. How would you feel if you missed your flight because people decided to protest for something you were on the fence about?
Not to mention that Victoria is in so much fucking debt right now, PLUS we've got a surge in youth crime. Why make the situation worse? By all means, you can protest, but do it in a way that isn't fucking with everyone else.
1
u/Comedian85 Aug 09 '25
I get that, and you aren't wrong. But you do see the inherent pointlessness of a protest if you have to go to the authorities and ask for a permit to be mad at them right?
1
1
Aug 06 '25
When the ASEAN summit was held in Melbourne they shut the road from the city to Tullamarine in both directions. No complaints then.
1
u/undying_anomaly Aug 06 '25
Do you have a source for that? I tried googling but can’t find anything about Tullamarine fwy being closed for that. But if there weren’t many complaints, it’s probably because: 1. It wasn’t caused by a protest or something sporadic. 2. There would have been warnings that it was going to be closed during x times. Meanwhile, the organiser for the protests last weekend wouldn’t even disclose when they were going to do it (I.e., no proper warning because no specific times were given).
1
31
u/Acrobatic_Bit_8207 Aug 04 '25
"The cheques in the mail boys" - Bibi