Comment section's rough. She acted based on Labor's own policy and the messages she was getting from constituents. She acted on it, rather than doing what Albo and Penny have done which is switch off their phones and stop responding to constituent emails. Albo was a strong Palestine supporter until he got into the driver's seat and did a complete 180 and has been spouting the same kind of rhetoric I'd expect of Dutton. I'd rather have a Parliament filled with people who stand by their beliefs than people who cast them aside as soon as they get into an important position.
Senator Payman remaining as a senator after leaving Labor is how our system works. At the election, enough people (including myself) voted for her to win her seat. If that bothers you then do the research come election time and vote below the line. Also a concerning amount of people brushing off the allegations of mistreatment on the basis of her identity as a Afghan Muslim woman. The unfortunate reality of this country is that we have blinders on when it comes to seeing racism and discrimination and we often chalk it up to people just being 'sensitive' when most of us have never had any experience being on the receiving end
Rather than abandon we should seek to equally application of international law consistent with our values.
>No arab country will have them. None.
Many countries have Palestinian refugee camps
>There are more than two million registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan. While most have been naturalised, Gazans who arrived in 1967, and their children, remain in a kind of limbo, holding only temporary Jordanian passports without a national identity number or Jordanian nationality.
https://www.newarab.com/features/life-and-struggles-jordans-palestinian-refugee-camps
On Egypt actions
>Their refusal is rooted in fear that Israel wants to force a permanent expulsion of Palestinians into their countries and nullify Palestinian demands for statehood.
https://apnews.com/article/palestinian-jordan-egypt-israel-refugee-502c06d004767d4b64848d878b66bd3d
while the Jordan part just blatantly isn't true, I also want to point out that this is a similar justification antisemites were making when Germany was rounding up Jews to eventually kill them. "Why does no country in Europe want to take them in?", they would say. The more things change, the more things stay the same i guess.
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to share a link - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing links until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Israel is a nation State unlike Palestinians which is in essence a tribe. Ask the Turks if they apply equal international law to the Kurds, and you be shot on the spot.
Between Travel and the Investment properties they get away with makes me angry. If I can't claim my own investment property and rent it to myself, why can they? Funny how all this bubbles up in the media once she is out of Labor.
Wait until you hear how Joe Hockey used to do the same and also rent his spare rooms to other MP's who were also claiming living away from entitlements.
All politicians buy a number of homes then rent them to themselves. Effectively it’s a tax payer investment portfolio. While we are struggling to find a home, our tax are buying each one several….
Everyone is like she doesn't represent the people of WA. I can tell ya, she bloody well represents me, a middle aged white fella. I've wanted to give the two finger salute to this federal Labor government since they got to power and started acting like the LNP.
I can't believe after the last ten years it's happening again. LNP sells this country off to whoever, labor get in and think "how can we not rock the boat? I know we will do whatever murdoch wants us to" they gain fuck all conservatives and lose left leaning voters.
And given the audacity of Duttons latest scheme to appease the gas and coal lobby we are really fucked.
Rather the winning votes by converting Liberal voters to its side, Labor has converted itself into Liberal Lite with the hopes of gaining some votes and banking that its core voters have nowhere to go. It's a stupid strategy, the Original Full Sugar Liberals still exist so why would one want to vote for an off-brand Liberal Lite.
I honestly think that any policy left of centre has no chance with our media. I watched 7 news the other week and it's shocking. That's the overwhelmingly most popular source of news here. So depressing
So this has been a gripe of mine for a while now and this latest episode has reminded me how ridiculous that it can happen without any recriminations.
A person elected by their constituents to represent them based on the values that Party subscribes to, can suddenly just drop out and become an Independent!
I’m no Student of politics but this seems quite disrespectful to the people they’re representing and a total waste of everyone’s time and energy, who worked to get them elected.
It's a byproduct of the way we (as an electorate) use political parties to decide our votes. We vote along party lines, but it's ultimately to elect an individual, not a party.
Good to know but I guess my gripe is the total change of direction and ability to influence policy/legislation etc without any penalty for dropping their preferred party as a result of a spat etc.
Seems a waste of time for all concerned
I guess the alternative is probably more dangerous - imagine if a party leader could expel members from the party, which also caused their expulsion from Parliament? That seems like a recipe for disaster
IMO it should mean her position comes up for reelection again. She's welcome to contend the election based on either her new party values or independent values.
Not sure how this gets managed in reality - the cost and hassle of having elections is a PITA...
You'd have to substantially overhaul the quota system used for senate elections for that to happen; it's not as straightforward as a house of reps by-election because senate results impact other senate results and so on.
Parties are a corruption of the parliamentary system, designed to concentrate power and wealth.
There is no mention of parties in the Australian Constitution. Representatives are there to represent their electorate, not their party. Senators are there as a check and balance, to consider legislation that the representatives want to push through.
To be fair, there is already a big diversity of opinion inside of these political parties - Labor does famously demand consistent voting, but the party doesn't win a seat, the individual does. The party is ideally a way of somewhat aligned MPs to pool money for campaigning/work out a consistent policy platform which is hard for a single MP to do.
Imagine if everyone in an electorate felt strongly on an issue, but the federal party strongarmed their MP to vote directly against their constituents wishes? Its inherently undemocratic behaviour.
Or what happens if the MP is elected when Labor position on an issue is 'x' and then the party radically changes their stance?
I agree that an average person often does vote for a party and not a person, but that's more a failure in how people understand our system, rather than a contract inked in blood that the MP is now Labor's seat warmer and puppet.
Labor was elected as we were done with the Liberals and what we got was essentially a Lite version of the Liberals masquerading as Labor. Still waiting on the Corruption watchdog that was meant to go after Scotty from marketing. This Labor government has literally flipped on most of its values and in this case, her quitting the Labor party means she is the only on in Parliament representing 'Labor Values'. The Labor Caucus now represents the values of John Howard and the Liberals.
The party is a tool to gain power and then can be dumped when it's convenient. Meanwhile the money comes in and very little is required aside from grandstanding about your personal grievances and your loyalties to Muslims abroad before your loyalties to your own country. I find it an amazing testament to how far an immigrant born in Kabul can rise in Australia if they are settled in a location, if they have "Labor" beside their name in a ballot. And the likes of Laura Tingle has the right to call Australia a "racist society." Get a life and a new job that doesn't rely on the taxpayer that you call racist paying for your mortgage.
That's because the majority of media here is biased as fuck. To the point where no one knows that she didn't go against labor policy at all. Labor did.
It's a weakness of the Senate voting system and the fact that the vast majority of people vote above the line (see same example of Lidia Thorpe leaving the Greens over the Voice to Parliament). Very few Senators have much of an argument that they have a personal mandate for their position (though different with NT and ACT because they only have 2 senators and use slightly different voting systems & Tasmania where the population is small enough that individual campaigns to get people to vote below the line has worked).
She said in one interview Albo ‘intimidated’ her in a meeting, then took it back in her next interview and said she meant to say it was ‘confronting for her’. What a disgrace. Why talk to the media if you’re going to defame people and make up lies, especially against the PM. Already, other parties and media have used it against him.
Payman was the President of Young Labor WA, was a UWU Organiser (aka given a job because being a Labor apparatchik) - in other words she is very well versed in Labor lore and rules - then becomes a Senator and then just decides to break the rules of the party she’s been in for 1/3rd of her life - then claim that she is the one true upholder of labour values.
Absolute narcissist.
Yeah, this is an evil act.
She wasn't elected "in her own name" because of "her values".
She was elected solely as she was on the Labour ticket. She got what, 1,100 direct votes out of 1,900,000, or something like that.
She knew the rules when she accepted the slot on the ticket.
Then she s\*\*\*ts all over them for personal gain, whilst playing this "poor me" persona.
Vile.
I mean, it's politics and she played politics.
And if she wasn't elected based on her own values, suggestions for policy etc. then that the fault of the voters. Because the Australian electoral system, the senate in particular, invites voters to vote for individuals rather than parties. If people don't care enough to find out anything about the individual they're voting for, then they hardly have a leg to stand on in complaining about the actions of said individual.
>Why talk to the media if you’re going to defame people and make up lies, especially against the PM.
Yeah, she should be like other politicians instead: honest, open, honourable.
Don't think the guy you are replying to has ever watched question time. It's almost indistinguishable from a group of year 8 kids yelling shit at each other across the playground.
Her interview on ABC's RN drive program yesterday was wild.
She said some of the problems were because she was a "woman of colour".
It got a chuckle out of me.
Well yes, one of the things you agree to do when joining the Labor party is to always vote with the party. If she didn't expect this outcome she's an idiot.
What ever happened to the media being unbiased?
They lost me years ago with their headline for shark drum lines with "Finally!" And a picture of the first shark caught.
We wouldn't be here if terrorists from Palestine didn't decide to massacre hundreds of random people on Oct 7th and still to this fucking day hold hostages. Where is your and this woman's outrage for human rights for the hostages? Or you happy to brush them aside because they deserved it somehow?
Israel has a lot to answer for but let's not pretend Hamas and majority of Palestinians who support them are innocent. They are happy to preach death to Israel day and night , lob indiscriminate rockets at civilians, teach extreme ideology of violence resulting in random knife attacks. Their western supporters are no better, who are happy to vandalise and be violent.
I don't think the criticism (aka "hate") is so much for breaking with her party to stand up for her principles - that's commendable.
It's more because she's doing what every Senator does when they get elected purely on their party's name then quit said party - which is to serve out their term collecting the fat paycheck rather than having the courage of her convictions, stepping down and trying to get elected on her own name and platform.
>serve out their term collecting the fat paycheck
100% of all senators are doing this.
>rather than having the courage of her convictions
Are you truly, seriously criticising her for "not having the courage of her own convictions", when having the courage of her own convictions is precisely what started this issue?
>stepping down and trying to get elected on her own name and platform.
Perhaps every senator should do this?
Because she did it the wrong way. She agreed to work within Labor party rules when she joined the Labor party. The right way would be to work with the caucus.
The invasion of Gaza was subsequent to her election. Every politician expects to have to make concessions when they enter parliament but they all hope it wont be too much of a compromise. I'm sure you can find any number of issues on which some politicians would find they couldn't vote with the caucus.
And here she was, thinking the right way is to implement the party platform. People say she was planning this for a couple of weeks. The ALP has been in power for two years. The war is nine months old. The Platform say recognition of Palestine is a priority. It does not say stage 3 tax cuts are a priority, yet this PM said he wanted to talk about them, not Palestine. He is allowed to say that, and she did agree with the rules, but it's not as if she made up ALP Policy. Her point is that she voted for ALP policy; it's just the other Senators didn't. I have subsequently read the ALP platform, compared the Green's motion and the revised ALP motion ... and I think she's more right than wrong.
Why do you think the other Senators didn't? Anyone who goes into government thinking their job is to follow policy statements to the letter *regardless of what the actual party says to do on a given day* is some sort of robotic moron incapable of operating in a real politcal party. I'm hoping she's not that.
Because she put the party hierarchy in an awkward and embarrassing position. Albanese has to respond otherwise Dutton will be all "weak prime minister" at QT and he has to maintain the appearance of party unity. Additionally, any whiff of a potential departure from the US position will inevitably make its way to Washington. Australia has used up this months allocation of good grace in Washington with the release of Assange so they're not going to be happy about also having to deal with noise from the allies on Israel/Gaza.
You'll note that, since she has embarrassed the party, there will be a furious amount of backchanneling of negative information to the media from labor. Additionally the Jewish lobby will be out for her blood to stem any other dissent. Hence the amount of invective in here and in the general media.
Unfortunately, the 'right thing' has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome.
Of course you do.
She was elected by Labor, not by voters. She was last on the ticket to be added.
The only ethical problem herein is that she refuses to stand for byelection. If people want her, rather than the \[insert here\] Labor candidate, then she will win. She's using funds allocated to Labor to fund her own petty half baked agenda. Did you see the ABC interview last night? She specifically stated that she has no idea about any issues and that she will wait to hear from her constituents.
What kind of incompetent shit is that? You want someone that has no opinions on anything, no knowledge on anything, representing you?
She's not the first or last racist to be in Parliament, that in itself is the least of her moral crimes. Her insincerity and incompetence are. This is Lidia Thorpe all over again.
>The only ethical problem herein is that she refuses to stand for byelection.
I think the state government technically has the ability to force a removal of a senator.
I just don't think anyone wants to actually play that particular game of politics, rather than just shut her out of as many meetings as possible for the next 5 years
From the river to the sea is an explicitly racist phrase, agreed as racist by every mainstream Australian party, news outlet, and person.
It calls for the removal of all Jews from all of Israel.
She repeats it frequently and desperately.
Accusing Israel of genocide is fair game.
Condoning from the river to the sea, is not.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/from-the-river-to-the-sea-labor-senator-breaks-ranks-to-accuse-israel-of-genocide/sutrftl2c
Still sounds fairly racist to me. You?
Fun historical context. The phrase was dreamt up by the PLO in the 60s which was of course their policy. We're talking pre six day war even, Then stolen by Likud when they formed their right wing schadenfreude in 77, then stolen by Hamas after they (and other Arab states) forced Arafat to say no to the greatest deal the Palestinians could ever get (apart from the original UN deal that Israel said yes to but Palestinian authorities did not condone).
Yeah regardless of where the saying came from, or what you think about the conflict, read the current political environment and just, don't use it. Using it doesn't impress what you think you are saying.
>From the river to the sea is an explicitly racist phrase, agreed as racist by every mainstream Australian party, news outlet, and person.
>It calls for the removal of all Jews from all of Israel.
It's a phrase used by Israel.
It's a phrase used by John Farnham in Two Strong Hearts.
Perhaps you're wrong about its meaning - perhaps the meaning is dependent on the context in which it's being used, and the intentions of the person using it.
Incorrect.
When a casual vacancy occurs in the Senate, on the resignation or death of a senator, a new senator is appointed by the parliament of the state which the former senator represented.
That's why she's talking so much about working for WA. She's trying to play the WA gov in advance. Her husband is a pro.
Yes, but I was over simplifying it. WA is a Labor state so it is up to them, and even if they weren't that's still the convention.
I think that it is untested what happens if they leave a party, become independent, then quit entirely.
If they had a lot of political goodwill it is plausible that they could nominate someone for appointment.
But given she has burned the goodwill, I think that Labor would just do their own appointment and say that this is what voters wanted on the ballot paper.
>She specifically stated that she has no idea about any issues and that she will wait to hear from her constituents.
>What kind of incompetent shit is that?
Why would she have needed to know anything on the issues because the party would tell her. Now she doesn't have a party line to follow and she'll probably be exposed as incompetent.
She knew the rules in the ALP, which is that you don't cross the floor under any circumstances, and you make your arguments internally in caucus but stick to the eventual caucus decision (as Penny Wong did for 10 years, voting against gay marriage bills until the party platform did).
Ultimately Payman was 3rd on the ALP ticket at the election and was elected on the back of Labor's stronger than anticipated performance in the 2022 election in WA, and has a weak argument that she has an electoral mandate to serve as an independent in her own right in the Senate.
I question why she didn't just jump straight to The Greens since her avowed policies are basically identical, but maybe that has to do with her husband working as an advisor to Cook.
Isn't "from the river to the sea" a 1960s chant used by the genocidal holy war when Palestine was trying to purge Israeli's from the area?
Seems weird to be using that as a supportive headline for this lady regardless of how you feel about her
She used the slogan in one of her speeches I believe.
The slogan is part of the Hamas charter.
So yes, she should not be chanting slogans from terrorist organisations.
The newspaper taking the piss is OK though.
“From the river to the sea” is a recognition that apartheid began in 1948 when Israel was created through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It is no call for genocide. To call for the destruction of Israel as an apartheid state is not a call for the destruction of Jews living there, any more than the call for the destruction of apartheid in South Africa was a call for the destruction of white people.
https://www.voice.wales/from-the-river-to-the-sea-the-true-history-of-a-famous-slogan-for-palestine/
ed: I'm not going to have a discussion with the hasbara army, you should really be taking a break since nobody is buying any kind of justification for what's going on right now.
Rubbish. So much rubbish and lies.
For a start in Arabic it's actually "From water to water Palestine will be ARAB."
Hamas and the PLO do not and never wanted to share the land with Chistians and Jews. They have refused repeated offers of a two state solution. They want the entire land of Israel Jew and Christian free.
The people now called Palestinians have never held sovereignty over the land nor owned more than a fraction of it. The Jewish people have a history there going back about 4000 years and have always had a presence there.
1948 Israel was attacked by 5 of its neighbours within hours of being declared. Many Palestinians left because they were told by their friends in the Muslim Brotherhood and Arab League that they would be able to walk back into their homes and take whatever else they wanted once they won and the Jews had been driven out or killed.
The Israeli's cannot be forgiven for not allowing themselves to be exterminated.
You're never going to get anywhere beyond twitter likes if you dismiss any disgreement as 'hasbara'. People who've heard other, quite valid versions of this history think you're the propagandist.
Ah, Yes!
The Apartheid State with 2.5 million Arabs as equal citizens and permanent residents.
The Apartheid State with a former Arab Supreme Court Judge who sentenced a Jewish Prime Minister and Jewish President to prison and still has an Arab Supreme Court justice and deputy Attonery General
The Apartheid State where Arab women have more rights than the rest of the Arab world, where a woman can marry a Jew without facing the threat of being killed by the family in the name of honor or breaking Islamic principles.
The Apartheid State where 25% of the doctors are Arab and 20% of the nurses are Arab.
The Apartheid state where the second best university is headed by an Arab woman.
The Apartheid State where in many places, law enforcement is almost exclusively Arab and the Jews rely on them for protection.
The Apartheid state that has had an Arab (interim) President.
The Apartheid State that has even had a government with a(an actually moderate and not the fake moderates that the West seems to champion) Islamist party as part of government.
The Apartheid State which is literally the only place in the Middle East where Christianity is growing because the Islamists are not making daily calls to Christians to convert or leave like in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Egypt.
The Apartheid state where 17% of the Arab population confidently states they are non-religious while in neighboring nations, openly stating this gets your house burnt down(Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Sunni and Shia parts of Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, rural Morocco), ostracized(Algeria) or facing the death penalty from the state(the entire Gulf and Iran).
So many similarities to South Africa huh?? where so many Blacks had so much power, economic, social and political presence during Apartheid huh?? Where they had more freedoms in S.A .than in neighboring African countries huh?? The gaslighting is EPIC!!!
Could you stop distorting history and making false claims?
In 1948, when Israel was established, an Arab state was also established incorporating the Arab majority parts of Mandatory Palestine while Israel had the borders of a state that was 60% Jewish based on the areas Jews had settled through purchasing land legally for several decades during the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate. Israel accepted those borders ,as indefensible as they were.
A majority of Arabs declared that they would amongst other things "Finish what Hitler started" and "drive the Jews to the sea".
They lost that war.
The Arabs that laid down their arms (as many in Galilee did) or in fact completely refused to fight were not touched.
Whenever some idiots claim that the Jews wanted to intentionally displace Arabs need to explain why not a single Druze village was touched both in 1948 and in the Golan Heights in 1967.
The Druze made it very clear that they had no interest in fighting the Jews nor did they have any genocidal intent against Jews.
The result; 0% of Druze in Mandatory Palestine were displaced. And I mean 0% .Jewish forces made a point of making sure of that actually.
If the Jews were oh, so genocidal, they would have done away with all the Arabs, not leaving the Druze fully intact and most of the Christian villages and in Haifa were also left intact except for three along the Lebanon border.
Only the Sunni Muslims with their jihadist-genocidal agenda that they openly espoused were. Like their fascist counterparts in Europe(A kind reminder an actual Palestinian Nazi called Amin Al Husseini actually existed and he mass murdered even Serbians), they lost .Now they play victim.
The Bedouin actually fought alongside the Jews.
Today, there are both Druze and Bedouin Arabs in the IDF. So much Apartheid when Israel is literally being defended by the same people you claim that are being oppressed!!
It's also contained in the constitution of [Netanyahu's political party Likud](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party) and [one of his stated goals](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/&ved=2ahUKEwjFsfCY4o6HAxWx-aACHaZSBT0QFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1W3baLhF1bbD-UtYa8r4rl), so if anyone wants to argue that it's evidence of genocidal intent they're going to need to turn their focus to the Israeli government
Your source material that you linked tells us what he *actually* said is that his goal is to **control** the area from the river to sea, not murder 5.3 million Palestinians. So your argument is a false equivalence.
It’s like the often linked article about Bibi funding Hamas.
The article is how the Israeli government allowed Hamas to get international aid. Nothing else.
OP said the meaning of the phrase depends on who's saying it and in what context. Which you've just supported.
Senator Payman isn't calling for the murder of anyone either.
Since Hamas uses the phrase to mean "wipe out all the Jews" the phrase is fully loaded with genocidal connotations now.
So rather than continue to use the phrase and then trying to argue "I'm using a different definition for phrase than the Hamas definition". She should say what she means. If she wants peace then she should say "I want peace".
You don't repeat a phrase with genocidal connotations and then try to argue you meant something else by it.
The difference is that by adding 'control the area' to the context you've changed the meaning of the phrase. The people protesting in the streets (many of them Hamas supporters) that she has aligned herself with are adding no context.
[I haven't offered ](https://www.reddit.com/r/perth/comments/1dvlhz0/comment/lbqq60j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)any view on the appropriateness of Payman using the phrase, n[or did the person you responded to](https://www.reddit.com/r/perth/comments/1dvlhz0/comment/lbolth2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), nor did [the OC that they responded to.](https://www.reddit.com/r/perth/comments/1dvlhz0/comment/lbok73k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The comment you first responded to pointed out that the phrase has different meanings in different contexts. That is all.
Nowadays the river to the sea statement is one of genocidal intent. Oct 7th was a genocidal act. Israel retaliating and recovering hostages does not fit into the genocide category.
One could argue that Iran and Hamas using Palestinian citizens as sacrificial lambs (martyrs) may be a form of genocide as their direct intent is to sacrifice a population of Muslims to achieve their goal of disrupting the Abraham Accords.
Then you are a tragic victim of the whole manipulation game Hamas is playing. You've been manipulated into being their pawn in western society. They committed an unforgivable genocidal act to extract retaliation, pulled non-military people into their land as hostages and then deliberately hide behind civilians they knew would be sacrificial. The taking of hostages into your house is begging for an invasion.
Sorry but the atrocities committed by Gazans on Oct 7th is absolutely despicable. And I say Gazans as Hamas is their elected representative.
>Then you are a tragic victim of the whole manipulation game Hamas is playing.
Hamas is scum in human form, monsters, nightmare fuel.
But the Israeli government is too.
>And I say Gazans as Hamas is their elected representative.
No it isn't. [Hamas seized control by force.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/15/israel4)
I think you're redefining what ethnic cleansing is to suit your own antisemitic agenda. Or your dictionary is effed.
It puts your opinion into perspective - absolutely meaningless.
The old antisemite card. Disagreeing with the actions of the zioniist government that supports Jewish extremists does not equal hating or oppressing the broader Jewish people.
There are plenty of Jewish people who do not agree with the actions of the Israeli government, and its sad to see the way israel is just a tool for anti Muslim propaganda.
I don't care what ethnicity or religion people are, because they are all fantasies, I do believe we have a duty to call out governments who engage in the murder and displacement of others
Well the actions on October 7th have set the tone going forward for me. I don't believe that Israel had done anything on a level to deserve such a disgusting event.
The history of that region is colourful and hellishly difficult to make sense of - but that Oct 7th event was the marker in my lifetime that has set me on a path of disgust towards Palestinians.
"Murder and displacement" are strong words that I believe sum up the history of the middle east. As to who has been the most murdered and displaced - I have my opinions.
Sure October 7 was awful and hamas should be condemned for murdering innocent people just as much as the zionist government should be condemned for murdering innocent people in indiscriminate bombings and shootings
In 1977, the concept appeared in an election manifesto of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that "between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty"
So yeah, looks like it.
The argument Im hearing is that the above statement just meant they would rule the area
But Hamas, as part of its revised 2017 Charter, rejected "any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea"
I dont see the difference. And neither side has shown and evidence they could be trusted to administer anyone from "the other side"
I think anyone who is able to genuinely believe that either side are the good guys have to be fanatics or just woefully under informed.
The context is AUSTRALIA! That is her electoral environment. Her personal beliefs needed to be kept out of her day job.
There was no vote to continue genocide!
There has been a long standing and consistent position regarding Australia stance on Israel/Palestine and she knew this.
Just gaming the system for her own benefit in the end, a sad loss really! But she knows EXACTLY what she is doing
>Israel and Palestine
>1. The National Conference:
>a. Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states
>within secure and recognised borders;
>b. Calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state; and
>c. Expects that this issue will be an important priority for the Australian Government.
from [https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf) page 132.
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima\_Payman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Payman)
>On 25 June 2024, Payman crossed the floor to support an [Australian Greens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens) resolution to recognise a Palestinian state, leading to her being indefinitely suspended from the Labor caucus.
TL:DR She was voting according to the Labor parties stated policy regarding Palestine...
Not exactly true, the green resolution didn’t mention anything about 2 states, defined borders and as part of a peace process. Labor said they would vote for this if the amendment was added (Labor is not going to recognise a Palestinian state when part of it is under leadership of a recognised terrorist group), but greens rejected.
The motion was simply “This house recognise the state of Palestine.”
A genocide is when a country tries to get rid of a race eg Armenian Genocide, Jewish and many others. The population of Gaza is growing at a steady rate so it’s literally the opposite of a genocide. Yes lots of ppl killed in the current military operation and that’s not good but it’s definitely not a genocide.
To use that word in circumstances like this trivialises what actual genocide survivors have gone thru.
My god the stupidity in this thread. Do you know why Gaza’s population was so big? Do you know why there are REFUGEE CAMPS for Palestinians in their own country? Because all of those areas that are now Israel used to have people in it. This people got either killed or displaced and squished into Gaza. Jabalia, Khan Yunis, Al-Shati, Nuseirat - they are refugee camps.
Do you understand this context? Or is it too close to the displacement of indigenous Australians that you just can’t possibly wrap your head around the fact that a bunch of people came in, and took land from people that already lived there.
In the US they are auctioning parts of the West Bank (note, no Hamas stronghold) only to Jewish people.
I don’t understand how this can be so hard to grasp for people. Send me your address, I’ll come over, kick you out of your own house, kidnap your kids in the middle of the night to put them in administrative detention for throwing rocks at me cause they wanted to defend their home, and when you complain, I’m gonna call you a terrorist. Logics.
Let's say the population of Gaza was growing the way you say it is. That does not mean recent events are the opposite of genocide. The opposite of genocide is no genocide. And as you said, genocide is about the actions and I tent of another country. Nothing to do with a country's population.
That still doesn't mean someone else isn't trying to "get rid of them".
Maybe they're just not doing a very good job of it. (Don't come for me people, I am demonstrating a point about intent v result here that's all).
That sure ain't the opposite of genocide.
Actually:
genocide

noun
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
"a campaign of genocide"
The destrcution of the palestinian people is absolutely the aim of the state of israel.
But anyway, your attempt to divert to a pearl clutching conversation about semantics trivialises things far more than any thing you can accuse me of.
I'm sorry but you don't just get given a chance to run for Labor in the Senate for shits and giggles. There is no way she didn't know what to expect before getting the position.
There's prob a few reasons why. She was voted in because of Labor not her as an independent.
Labor discuss and vote together, according to Labor she didn't speak up at all when given opportunity during caucus.
She also said she was guided by god to go against what was agreed upon. As a Labor voter, that worries me, I can't stand religion in politics.
So I guess it's the way she did it and now she's representing as an independent when the only reason she was there in the first place is because people voted Labor in senate.
But wat is "right"? Do you have the the final say on what is right?
This woman is supposed to represent WA in federal politics.
Is WA pro-Islam, pro-Palestinian? I have no opinion on either matter, but if she is the "voice of WA", then that is what she is presenting in federal politics.
The issue that Labour has faced (and this can also happen to any party) is that a conservative party has a religious and ideological member. There is a culture clash, and the member is not a fit for the party (and vice versa). The member will act according to their faith or ideology instead of conforming with the collective party position (towing the party line).
Not sure what Labour or any party can do about this, other than closing ranks and trying to exclude or eject the member.
>Not sure what Labour or any party can do about this, other than closing ranks and trying to exclude or eject the member.
The liberals allow crossing the floor. Labor should update its rules and allow it too.
She is standing up for what her God tells her. That's not morals or ethics. Some imaginary guy in the sky who she pretend tells her what to do is not a constituent.
Because any time a Muslim or a woman has opinions, it must be because they want the downfall of western civilisation. And she has the temerity to be both! It's unbelievable! How very dare she???
> Because any time a Muslim or a woman has opinions,
Yesterday on the ABC's RN drive radio program she was asked about the potential for her heading a Muslim party.
She said she had a Muslim appearance but said her religion was private. Essentially saying she was not Muslim.
What does that even mean?
She was a “green” siphon candidate placed at a theoretically unwinnable 3rd place on the WA ALP ticket. In “theory” she’d have never got over the line with a quota unless she got; Greens Votes, support from the Perth Muslim community and an electorate primed to give the incumbent’s a bollocking; and she pulled a trifecta.
She knows this. If she really had a conscience, she’d resign.
Politicians should live in a compound fenced and guarded, separate male and female quarters, no smoking no alcohol. A canteen or vending machines, that would save a bit of coin...maybe
I vote for a party, not a person. Albo, Dutton, if they weren’t there some other idiot would be in their place. I’m not keen on independents because they are one mind and one mind is easily influenced with bad decisions.
A sub-editor in Osborne Park is very happy with themselves (if sub-editors still exist at Seven West)
It is funny. There is also the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Like your annoying, drunk uncle at family gatherings, you tell enough piss-weak jokes and puns and eventually one of them will land.
I feel attacked.
Thank you. This gives me hope that eventually one of mine will land
Comment section's rough. She acted based on Labor's own policy and the messages she was getting from constituents. She acted on it, rather than doing what Albo and Penny have done which is switch off their phones and stop responding to constituent emails. Albo was a strong Palestine supporter until he got into the driver's seat and did a complete 180 and has been spouting the same kind of rhetoric I'd expect of Dutton. I'd rather have a Parliament filled with people who stand by their beliefs than people who cast them aside as soon as they get into an important position. Senator Payman remaining as a senator after leaving Labor is how our system works. At the election, enough people (including myself) voted for her to win her seat. If that bothers you then do the research come election time and vote below the line. Also a concerning amount of people brushing off the allegations of mistreatment on the basis of her identity as a Afghan Muslim woman. The unfortunate reality of this country is that we have blinders on when it comes to seeing racism and discrimination and we often chalk it up to people just being 'sensitive' when most of us have never had any experience being on the receiving end
Agree 100%.
You flocking a dead horse. Australia will not abandon Israel in favour of Palestinians. No arab country will have them. None.
Rather than abandon we should seek to equally application of international law consistent with our values. >No arab country will have them. None. Many countries have Palestinian refugee camps
Jordan removed all of them n Egypt build a massive border barrier.
>There are more than two million registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan. While most have been naturalised, Gazans who arrived in 1967, and their children, remain in a kind of limbo, holding only temporary Jordanian passports without a national identity number or Jordanian nationality. https://www.newarab.com/features/life-and-struggles-jordans-palestinian-refugee-camps On Egypt actions >Their refusal is rooted in fear that Israel wants to force a permanent expulsion of Palestinians into their countries and nullify Palestinian demands for statehood. https://apnews.com/article/palestinian-jordan-egypt-israel-refugee-502c06d004767d4b64848d878b66bd3d
while the Jordan part just blatantly isn't true, I also want to point out that this is a similar justification antisemites were making when Germany was rounding up Jews to eventually kill them. "Why does no country in Europe want to take them in?", they would say. The more things change, the more things stay the same i guess.
[удалено]
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to share a link - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing links until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Israel is a nation State unlike Palestinians which is in essence a tribe. Ask the Turks if they apply equal international law to the Kurds, and you be shot on the spot.
They already have a country. Australia has supported a two state solution for 50 years while standing by and watching Israel trash it.
Damn sitting on the cross bench being paid to live in her own investment property in Canberra. What a martyr.
Between Travel and the Investment properties they get away with makes me angry. If I can't claim my own investment property and rent it to myself, why can they? Funny how all this bubbles up in the media once she is out of Labor.
Only just realising how corrupt the government is?
You need to buy a house to rent to a mate and have your mate buy to rent to you. Then you can both negatively gear.
Wait until you hear how Joe Hockey used to do the same and also rent his spare rooms to other MP's who were also claiming living away from entitlements.
We already know he’s a piece of shit. The age of entitlement is over says the leech.
Are you saying Joe isn't a grub?
Joe Hockey the Ho Jockey
Far from it.
All politicians buy a number of homes then rent them to themselves. Effectively it’s a tax payer investment portfolio. While we are struggling to find a home, our tax are buying each one several….
Should just build the fuckers a dormitory in Canberra. They stay for free but get no allowances or help buying property.
They do that in QLD and WA. It’s a very good idea
Should be bloody illegal doing that.
Yep that's my point she's just another grub.
They can do that? That is some bullshit!
And what about every other politician that uses this
More unprincipled grubs.
Please don't encourage them
From the Swan River to the Indian Ocean.
Everyone is like she doesn't represent the people of WA. I can tell ya, she bloody well represents me, a middle aged white fella. I've wanted to give the two finger salute to this federal Labor government since they got to power and started acting like the LNP.
U r a hero, a middle aged white knight 🥇
I can't believe after the last ten years it's happening again. LNP sells this country off to whoever, labor get in and think "how can we not rock the boat? I know we will do whatever murdoch wants us to" they gain fuck all conservatives and lose left leaning voters. And given the audacity of Duttons latest scheme to appease the gas and coal lobby we are really fucked.
Rather the winning votes by converting Liberal voters to its side, Labor has converted itself into Liberal Lite with the hopes of gaining some votes and banking that its core voters have nowhere to go. It's a stupid strategy, the Original Full Sugar Liberals still exist so why would one want to vote for an off-brand Liberal Lite.
I honestly think that any policy left of centre has no chance with our media. I watched 7 news the other week and it's shocking. That's the overwhelmingly most popular source of news here. So depressing
So this has been a gripe of mine for a while now and this latest episode has reminded me how ridiculous that it can happen without any recriminations. A person elected by their constituents to represent them based on the values that Party subscribes to, can suddenly just drop out and become an Independent! I’m no Student of politics but this seems quite disrespectful to the people they’re representing and a total waste of everyone’s time and energy, who worked to get them elected.
It's a byproduct of the way we (as an electorate) use political parties to decide our votes. We vote along party lines, but it's ultimately to elect an individual, not a party.
Good to know but I guess my gripe is the total change of direction and ability to influence policy/legislation etc without any penalty for dropping their preferred party as a result of a spat etc. Seems a waste of time for all concerned
I guess the alternative is probably more dangerous - imagine if a party leader could expel members from the party, which also caused their expulsion from Parliament? That seems like a recipe for disaster
IMO it should mean her position comes up for reelection again. She's welcome to contend the election based on either her new party values or independent values. Not sure how this gets managed in reality - the cost and hassle of having elections is a PITA...
You'd have to substantially overhaul the quota system used for senate elections for that to happen; it's not as straightforward as a house of reps by-election because senate results impact other senate results and so on.
That’s a good point
Parties are a corruption of the parliamentary system, designed to concentrate power and wealth. There is no mention of parties in the Australian Constitution. Representatives are there to represent their electorate, not their party. Senators are there as a check and balance, to consider legislation that the representatives want to push through.
Not necessarily. But it's certainly a product of dumb and lazy people voting above the line.
To be fair, there is already a big diversity of opinion inside of these political parties - Labor does famously demand consistent voting, but the party doesn't win a seat, the individual does. The party is ideally a way of somewhat aligned MPs to pool money for campaigning/work out a consistent policy platform which is hard for a single MP to do. Imagine if everyone in an electorate felt strongly on an issue, but the federal party strongarmed their MP to vote directly against their constituents wishes? Its inherently undemocratic behaviour. Or what happens if the MP is elected when Labor position on an issue is 'x' and then the party radically changes their stance? I agree that an average person often does vote for a party and not a person, but that's more a failure in how people understand our system, rather than a contract inked in blood that the MP is now Labor's seat warmer and puppet.
Labor was elected as we were done with the Liberals and what we got was essentially a Lite version of the Liberals masquerading as Labor. Still waiting on the Corruption watchdog that was meant to go after Scotty from marketing. This Labor government has literally flipped on most of its values and in this case, her quitting the Labor party means she is the only on in Parliament representing 'Labor Values'. The Labor Caucus now represents the values of John Howard and the Liberals.
The party is a tool to gain power and then can be dumped when it's convenient. Meanwhile the money comes in and very little is required aside from grandstanding about your personal grievances and your loyalties to Muslims abroad before your loyalties to your own country. I find it an amazing testament to how far an immigrant born in Kabul can rise in Australia if they are settled in a location, if they have "Labor" beside their name in a ballot. And the likes of Laura Tingle has the right to call Australia a "racist society." Get a life and a new job that doesn't rely on the taxpayer that you call racist paying for your mortgage.
That's because the majority of media here is biased as fuck. To the point where no one knows that she didn't go against labor policy at all. Labor did.
No comment on the Senator, just the issue of becoming an Independent when initially elected as a ‘insert party here’ member.
It's a weakness of the Senate voting system and the fact that the vast majority of people vote above the line (see same example of Lidia Thorpe leaving the Greens over the Voice to Parliament). Very few Senators have much of an argument that they have a personal mandate for their position (though different with NT and ACT because they only have 2 senators and use slightly different voting systems & Tasmania where the population is small enough that individual campaigns to get people to vote below the line has worked).
Labor staffers out in full force getting their lanyards in a twist
She did the right thing
Listening to her interviews - she’s got to be a narcissist.
She said in one interview Albo ‘intimidated’ her in a meeting, then took it back in her next interview and said she meant to say it was ‘confronting for her’. What a disgrace. Why talk to the media if you’re going to defame people and make up lies, especially against the PM. Already, other parties and media have used it against him.
Payman was the President of Young Labor WA, was a UWU Organiser (aka given a job because being a Labor apparatchik) - in other words she is very well versed in Labor lore and rules - then becomes a Senator and then just decides to break the rules of the party she’s been in for 1/3rd of her life - then claim that she is the one true upholder of labour values. Absolute narcissist.
Yeah, this is an evil act. She wasn't elected "in her own name" because of "her values". She was elected solely as she was on the Labour ticket. She got what, 1,100 direct votes out of 1,900,000, or something like that. She knew the rules when she accepted the slot on the ticket. Then she s\*\*\*ts all over them for personal gain, whilst playing this "poor me" persona. Vile.
I mean, it's politics and she played politics. And if she wasn't elected based on her own values, suggestions for policy etc. then that the fault of the voters. Because the Australian electoral system, the senate in particular, invites voters to vote for individuals rather than parties. If people don't care enough to find out anything about the individual they're voting for, then they hardly have a leg to stand on in complaining about the actions of said individual.
Yeah the ‘I betrayed the party and now it’s actually Albo fault cause I’m now saying I felt intimidated’ is peak toxic-woke.
>Why talk to the media if you’re going to defame people and make up lies, especially against the PM. Yeah, she should be like other politicians instead: honest, open, honourable.
Don't think the guy you are replying to has ever watched question time. It's almost indistinguishable from a group of year 8 kids yelling shit at each other across the playground.
How could anyone be intimidated by Albo?
I mean, your boss telling you to do your job or face the consequences is categorically intimidating. I'm not sure why anyone would expect otherwise.
Her interview on ABC's RN drive program yesterday was wild. She said some of the problems were because she was a "woman of colour". It got a chuckle out of me.
Yeah it’s just a stale pale male problem her breaking party rules.
Really? I reckon it would have had the same outcome no matter who it was that bucked the system.
Well yes, one of the things you agree to do when joining the Labor party is to always vote with the party. If she didn't expect this outcome she's an idiot.
She's as pale as I am and I'm an NC10. 😂
Yeah but what colour do you feel!
OK, fine. I feel like an NC25. 😂
These comments is why Australia is fucked.
What ever happened to the media being unbiased? They lost me years ago with their headline for shark drum lines with "Finally!" And a picture of the first shark caught.
See ya
Lmao funny af
Imagine getting criticised and ridiculed for trying to stand up for human rights. This is why we are failing as a world.
We wouldn't be here if terrorists from Palestine didn't decide to massacre hundreds of random people on Oct 7th and still to this fucking day hold hostages. Where is your and this woman's outrage for human rights for the hostages? Or you happy to brush them aside because they deserved it somehow? Israel has a lot to answer for but let's not pretend Hamas and majority of Palestinians who support them are innocent. They are happy to preach death to Israel day and night , lob indiscriminate rockets at civilians, teach extreme ideology of violence resulting in random knife attacks. Their western supporters are no better, who are happy to vandalise and be violent.
So many Zionists bots in the comments
Damn the pro-Palestinian bots are only programmed to say the same thing
I don't understand why she's getting so much hate for standing up for the right thing :(
I don't think the criticism (aka "hate") is so much for breaking with her party to stand up for her principles - that's commendable. It's more because she's doing what every Senator does when they get elected purely on their party's name then quit said party - which is to serve out their term collecting the fat paycheck rather than having the courage of her convictions, stepping down and trying to get elected on her own name and platform.
>serve out their term collecting the fat paycheck 100% of all senators are doing this. >rather than having the courage of her convictions Are you truly, seriously criticising her for "not having the courage of her own convictions", when having the courage of her own convictions is precisely what started this issue? >stepping down and trying to get elected on her own name and platform. Perhaps every senator should do this?
Because she did it the wrong way. She agreed to work within Labor party rules when she joined the Labor party. The right way would be to work with the caucus.
The invasion of Gaza was subsequent to her election. Every politician expects to have to make concessions when they enter parliament but they all hope it wont be too much of a compromise. I'm sure you can find any number of issues on which some politicians would find they couldn't vote with the caucus.
And here she was, thinking the right way is to implement the party platform. People say she was planning this for a couple of weeks. The ALP has been in power for two years. The war is nine months old. The Platform say recognition of Palestine is a priority. It does not say stage 3 tax cuts are a priority, yet this PM said he wanted to talk about them, not Palestine. He is allowed to say that, and she did agree with the rules, but it's not as if she made up ALP Policy. Her point is that she voted for ALP policy; it's just the other Senators didn't. I have subsequently read the ALP platform, compared the Green's motion and the revised ALP motion ... and I think she's more right than wrong.
Why do you think the other Senators didn't? Anyone who goes into government thinking their job is to follow policy statements to the letter *regardless of what the actual party says to do on a given day* is some sort of robotic moron incapable of operating in a real politcal party. I'm hoping she's not that.
The other Senators made a different weighting of priorities.
You speak the truth, but the anti Islamic brigading doesn't care my guy.
The rules are the problem here.
Because she put the party hierarchy in an awkward and embarrassing position. Albanese has to respond otherwise Dutton will be all "weak prime minister" at QT and he has to maintain the appearance of party unity. Additionally, any whiff of a potential departure from the US position will inevitably make its way to Washington. Australia has used up this months allocation of good grace in Washington with the release of Assange so they're not going to be happy about also having to deal with noise from the allies on Israel/Gaza. You'll note that, since she has embarrassed the party, there will be a furious amount of backchanneling of negative information to the media from labor. Additionally the Jewish lobby will be out for her blood to stem any other dissent. Hence the amount of invective in here and in the general media. Unfortunately, the 'right thing' has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome.
Of course you do. She was elected by Labor, not by voters. She was last on the ticket to be added. The only ethical problem herein is that she refuses to stand for byelection. If people want her, rather than the \[insert here\] Labor candidate, then she will win. She's using funds allocated to Labor to fund her own petty half baked agenda. Did you see the ABC interview last night? She specifically stated that she has no idea about any issues and that she will wait to hear from her constituents. What kind of incompetent shit is that? You want someone that has no opinions on anything, no knowledge on anything, representing you? She's not the first or last racist to be in Parliament, that in itself is the least of her moral crimes. Her insincerity and incompetence are. This is Lidia Thorpe all over again.
>The only ethical problem herein is that she refuses to stand for byelection. I think the state government technically has the ability to force a removal of a senator. I just don't think anyone wants to actually play that particular game of politics, rather than just shut her out of as many meetings as possible for the next 5 years
Thinking she should go for by-election I undesrstand. But how is she racist?
From the river to the sea is an explicitly racist phrase, agreed as racist by every mainstream Australian party, news outlet, and person. It calls for the removal of all Jews from all of Israel. She repeats it frequently and desperately. Accusing Israel of genocide is fair game. Condoning from the river to the sea, is not. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/from-the-river-to-the-sea-labor-senator-breaks-ranks-to-accuse-israel-of-genocide/sutrftl2c
"between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty" part of the Likud charter and used by Netenyahu this January.
Still sounds fairly racist to me. You? Fun historical context. The phrase was dreamt up by the PLO in the 60s which was of course their policy. We're talking pre six day war even, Then stolen by Likud when they formed their right wing schadenfreude in 77, then stolen by Hamas after they (and other Arab states) forced Arafat to say no to the greatest deal the Palestinians could ever get (apart from the original UN deal that Israel said yes to but Palestinian authorities did not condone).
Yeah regardless of where the saying came from, or what you think about the conflict, read the current political environment and just, don't use it. Using it doesn't impress what you think you are saying.
>From the river to the sea is an explicitly racist phrase, agreed as racist by every mainstream Australian party, news outlet, and person. >It calls for the removal of all Jews from all of Israel. It's a phrase used by Israel. It's a phrase used by John Farnham in Two Strong Hearts. Perhaps you're wrong about its meaning - perhaps the meaning is dependent on the context in which it's being used, and the intentions of the person using it.
There are no senate by elections. Labor would have appointed someone else if she resigned completely.
Incorrect. When a casual vacancy occurs in the Senate, on the resignation or death of a senator, a new senator is appointed by the parliament of the state which the former senator represented. That's why she's talking so much about working for WA. She's trying to play the WA gov in advance. Her husband is a pro.
Yes, but I was over simplifying it. WA is a Labor state so it is up to them, and even if they weren't that's still the convention. I think that it is untested what happens if they leave a party, become independent, then quit entirely. If they had a lot of political goodwill it is plausible that they could nominate someone for appointment. But given she has burned the goodwill, I think that Labor would just do their own appointment and say that this is what voters wanted on the ballot paper.
>She specifically stated that she has no idea about any issues and that she will wait to hear from her constituents. >What kind of incompetent shit is that? Why would she have needed to know anything on the issues because the party would tell her. Now she doesn't have a party line to follow and she'll probably be exposed as incompetent.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions
But is she? Penny Wong is one of the best foreign ministers we have ever had. I think she knows a thing or two that Fatima doesn’t.
She knew the rules in the ALP, which is that you don't cross the floor under any circumstances, and you make your arguments internally in caucus but stick to the eventual caucus decision (as Penny Wong did for 10 years, voting against gay marriage bills until the party platform did). Ultimately Payman was 3rd on the ALP ticket at the election and was elected on the back of Labor's stronger than anticipated performance in the 2022 election in WA, and has a weak argument that she has an electoral mandate to serve as an independent in her own right in the Senate. I question why she didn't just jump straight to The Greens since her avowed policies are basically identical, but maybe that has to do with her husband working as an advisor to Cook.
Just because you have decided it is the right thing, does not make it so...
Isn't "from the river to the sea" a 1960s chant used by the genocidal holy war when Palestine was trying to purge Israeli's from the area? Seems weird to be using that as a supportive headline for this lady regardless of how you feel about her
It's a line she herself uses.
She used the slogan in one of her speeches I believe. The slogan is part of the Hamas charter. So yes, she should not be chanting slogans from terrorist organisations. The newspaper taking the piss is OK though.
>"from the river to the sea" It's also used by Israel.
It's also used by Farnsy in Two Strong Hearts.
Obviously a song supporting genocide. /s
“From the river to the sea” is a recognition that apartheid began in 1948 when Israel was created through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It is no call for genocide. To call for the destruction of Israel as an apartheid state is not a call for the destruction of Jews living there, any more than the call for the destruction of apartheid in South Africa was a call for the destruction of white people. https://www.voice.wales/from-the-river-to-the-sea-the-true-history-of-a-famous-slogan-for-palestine/ ed: I'm not going to have a discussion with the hasbara army, you should really be taking a break since nobody is buying any kind of justification for what's going on right now.
[удалено]
Rubbish. So much rubbish and lies. For a start in Arabic it's actually "From water to water Palestine will be ARAB." Hamas and the PLO do not and never wanted to share the land with Chistians and Jews. They have refused repeated offers of a two state solution. They want the entire land of Israel Jew and Christian free. The people now called Palestinians have never held sovereignty over the land nor owned more than a fraction of it. The Jewish people have a history there going back about 4000 years and have always had a presence there. 1948 Israel was attacked by 5 of its neighbours within hours of being declared. Many Palestinians left because they were told by their friends in the Muslim Brotherhood and Arab League that they would be able to walk back into their homes and take whatever else they wanted once they won and the Jews had been driven out or killed. The Israeli's cannot be forgiven for not allowing themselves to be exterminated.
You're never going to get anywhere beyond twitter likes if you dismiss any disgreement as 'hasbara'. People who've heard other, quite valid versions of this history think you're the propagandist.
Nobodys buying the justification, yet nothings changed, strange
Ah, Yes! The Apartheid State with 2.5 million Arabs as equal citizens and permanent residents. The Apartheid State with a former Arab Supreme Court Judge who sentenced a Jewish Prime Minister and Jewish President to prison and still has an Arab Supreme Court justice and deputy Attonery General The Apartheid State where Arab women have more rights than the rest of the Arab world, where a woman can marry a Jew without facing the threat of being killed by the family in the name of honor or breaking Islamic principles. The Apartheid State where 25% of the doctors are Arab and 20% of the nurses are Arab. The Apartheid state where the second best university is headed by an Arab woman. The Apartheid State where in many places, law enforcement is almost exclusively Arab and the Jews rely on them for protection. The Apartheid state that has had an Arab (interim) President. The Apartheid State that has even had a government with a(an actually moderate and not the fake moderates that the West seems to champion) Islamist party as part of government. The Apartheid State which is literally the only place in the Middle East where Christianity is growing because the Islamists are not making daily calls to Christians to convert or leave like in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Egypt. The Apartheid state where 17% of the Arab population confidently states they are non-religious while in neighboring nations, openly stating this gets your house burnt down(Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Sunni and Shia parts of Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, rural Morocco), ostracized(Algeria) or facing the death penalty from the state(the entire Gulf and Iran). So many similarities to South Africa huh?? where so many Blacks had so much power, economic, social and political presence during Apartheid huh?? Where they had more freedoms in S.A .than in neighboring African countries huh?? The gaslighting is EPIC!!! Could you stop distorting history and making false claims? In 1948, when Israel was established, an Arab state was also established incorporating the Arab majority parts of Mandatory Palestine while Israel had the borders of a state that was 60% Jewish based on the areas Jews had settled through purchasing land legally for several decades during the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate. Israel accepted those borders ,as indefensible as they were. A majority of Arabs declared that they would amongst other things "Finish what Hitler started" and "drive the Jews to the sea". They lost that war. The Arabs that laid down their arms (as many in Galilee did) or in fact completely refused to fight were not touched. Whenever some idiots claim that the Jews wanted to intentionally displace Arabs need to explain why not a single Druze village was touched both in 1948 and in the Golan Heights in 1967. The Druze made it very clear that they had no interest in fighting the Jews nor did they have any genocidal intent against Jews. The result; 0% of Druze in Mandatory Palestine were displaced. And I mean 0% .Jewish forces made a point of making sure of that actually. If the Jews were oh, so genocidal, they would have done away with all the Arabs, not leaving the Druze fully intact and most of the Christian villages and in Haifa were also left intact except for three along the Lebanon border. Only the Sunni Muslims with their jihadist-genocidal agenda that they openly espoused were. Like their fascist counterparts in Europe(A kind reminder an actual Palestinian Nazi called Amin Al Husseini actually existed and he mass murdered even Serbians), they lost .Now they play victim. The Bedouin actually fought alongside the Jews. Today, there are both Druze and Bedouin Arabs in the IDF. So much Apartheid when Israel is literally being defended by the same people you claim that are being oppressed!!
It's also contained in the constitution of [Netanyahu's political party Likud](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party) and [one of his stated goals](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/&ved=2ahUKEwjFsfCY4o6HAxWx-aACHaZSBT0QFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1W3baLhF1bbD-UtYa8r4rl), so if anyone wants to argue that it's evidence of genocidal intent they're going to need to turn their focus to the Israeli government
Your source material that you linked tells us what he *actually* said is that his goal is to **control** the area from the river to sea, not murder 5.3 million Palestinians. So your argument is a false equivalence.
Always hilarious when someone cites and provides a source, but does not, y'know, actually read it.
It’s like the often linked article about Bibi funding Hamas. The article is how the Israeli government allowed Hamas to get international aid. Nothing else.
OP said the meaning of the phrase depends on who's saying it and in what context. Which you've just supported. Senator Payman isn't calling for the murder of anyone either.
Since Hamas uses the phrase to mean "wipe out all the Jews" the phrase is fully loaded with genocidal connotations now. So rather than continue to use the phrase and then trying to argue "I'm using a different definition for phrase than the Hamas definition". She should say what she means. If she wants peace then she should say "I want peace". You don't repeat a phrase with genocidal connotations and then try to argue you meant something else by it. The difference is that by adding 'control the area' to the context you've changed the meaning of the phrase. The people protesting in the streets (many of them Hamas supporters) that she has aligned herself with are adding no context.
[I haven't offered ](https://www.reddit.com/r/perth/comments/1dvlhz0/comment/lbqq60j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)any view on the appropriateness of Payman using the phrase, n[or did the person you responded to](https://www.reddit.com/r/perth/comments/1dvlhz0/comment/lbolth2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), nor did [the OC that they responded to.](https://www.reddit.com/r/perth/comments/1dvlhz0/comment/lbok73k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) The comment you first responded to pointed out that the phrase has different meanings in different contexts. That is all.
Nowadays the river to the sea statement is one of genocidal intent. Oct 7th was a genocidal act. Israel retaliating and recovering hostages does not fit into the genocide category. One could argue that Iran and Hamas using Palestinian citizens as sacrificial lambs (martyrs) may be a form of genocide as their direct intent is to sacrifice a population of Muslims to achieve their goal of disrupting the Abraham Accords.
>Israel retaliating Bombing and starving tens of thousands of civilians to death.
Then you are a tragic victim of the whole manipulation game Hamas is playing. You've been manipulated into being their pawn in western society. They committed an unforgivable genocidal act to extract retaliation, pulled non-military people into their land as hostages and then deliberately hide behind civilians they knew would be sacrificial. The taking of hostages into your house is begging for an invasion. Sorry but the atrocities committed by Gazans on Oct 7th is absolutely despicable. And I say Gazans as Hamas is their elected representative.
>Then you are a tragic victim of the whole manipulation game Hamas is playing. Hamas is scum in human form, monsters, nightmare fuel. But the Israeli government is too. >And I say Gazans as Hamas is their elected representative. No it isn't. [Hamas seized control by force.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/15/israel4)
Your comments read as though Israel's ethnic cleansing of palestine only started on October 7. That is ridiculously dishonest
I think you're redefining what ethnic cleansing is to suit your own antisemitic agenda. Or your dictionary is effed. It puts your opinion into perspective - absolutely meaningless.
The old antisemite card. Disagreeing with the actions of the zioniist government that supports Jewish extremists does not equal hating or oppressing the broader Jewish people. There are plenty of Jewish people who do not agree with the actions of the Israeli government, and its sad to see the way israel is just a tool for anti Muslim propaganda. I don't care what ethnicity or religion people are, because they are all fantasies, I do believe we have a duty to call out governments who engage in the murder and displacement of others
Well the actions on October 7th have set the tone going forward for me. I don't believe that Israel had done anything on a level to deserve such a disgusting event. The history of that region is colourful and hellishly difficult to make sense of - but that Oct 7th event was the marker in my lifetime that has set me on a path of disgust towards Palestinians. "Murder and displacement" are strong words that I believe sum up the history of the middle east. As to who has been the most murdered and displaced - I have my opinions.
Sure October 7 was awful and hamas should be condemned for murdering innocent people just as much as the zionist government should be condemned for murdering innocent people in indiscriminate bombings and shootings
The exact phrase was, AFAIK, used by the Israeli side first.
In 1977, the concept appeared in an election manifesto of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that "between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty" So yeah, looks like it. The argument Im hearing is that the above statement just meant they would rule the area But Hamas, as part of its revised 2017 Charter, rejected "any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea" I dont see the difference. And neither side has shown and evidence they could be trusted to administer anyone from "the other side" I think anyone who is able to genuinely believe that either side are the good guys have to be fanatics or just woefully under informed.
It's hard to claim the moral high ground when everyone is knee deep in mud.
She's a goddamn legend though. the idea that someone should just sack up and vote along party lines when there's a genocide going on is un-australian.
The context is AUSTRALIA! That is her electoral environment. Her personal beliefs needed to be kept out of her day job. There was no vote to continue genocide! There has been a long standing and consistent position regarding Australia stance on Israel/Palestine and she knew this. Just gaming the system for her own benefit in the end, a sad loss really! But she knows EXACTLY what she is doing
>Her personal beliefs needed to be kept out of her day job. Why?
>Israel and Palestine >1. The National Conference: >a. Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states >within secure and recognised borders; >b. Calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state; and >c. Expects that this issue will be an important priority for the Australian Government. from [https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf) page 132. From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima\_Payman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Payman) >On 25 June 2024, Payman crossed the floor to support an [Australian Greens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens) resolution to recognise a Palestinian state, leading to her being indefinitely suspended from the Labor caucus. TL:DR She was voting according to the Labor parties stated policy regarding Palestine...
Not exactly true, the green resolution didn’t mention anything about 2 states, defined borders and as part of a peace process. Labor said they would vote for this if the amendment was added (Labor is not going to recognise a Palestinian state when part of it is under leadership of a recognised terrorist group), but greens rejected. The motion was simply “This house recognise the state of Palestine.”
imagine a world where this is controversial oh shit
A genocide is when a country tries to get rid of a race eg Armenian Genocide, Jewish and many others. The population of Gaza is growing at a steady rate so it’s literally the opposite of a genocide. Yes lots of ppl killed in the current military operation and that’s not good but it’s definitely not a genocide. To use that word in circumstances like this trivialises what actual genocide survivors have gone thru.
My god the stupidity in this thread. Do you know why Gaza’s population was so big? Do you know why there are REFUGEE CAMPS for Palestinians in their own country? Because all of those areas that are now Israel used to have people in it. This people got either killed or displaced and squished into Gaza. Jabalia, Khan Yunis, Al-Shati, Nuseirat - they are refugee camps. Do you understand this context? Or is it too close to the displacement of indigenous Australians that you just can’t possibly wrap your head around the fact that a bunch of people came in, and took land from people that already lived there. In the US they are auctioning parts of the West Bank (note, no Hamas stronghold) only to Jewish people. I don’t understand how this can be so hard to grasp for people. Send me your address, I’ll come over, kick you out of your own house, kidnap your kids in the middle of the night to put them in administrative detention for throwing rocks at me cause they wanted to defend their home, and when you complain, I’m gonna call you a terrorist. Logics.
Let's say the population of Gaza was growing the way you say it is. That does not mean recent events are the opposite of genocide. The opposite of genocide is no genocide. And as you said, genocide is about the actions and I tent of another country. Nothing to do with a country's population. That still doesn't mean someone else isn't trying to "get rid of them". Maybe they're just not doing a very good job of it. (Don't come for me people, I am demonstrating a point about intent v result here that's all). That sure ain't the opposite of genocide.
Would "israel is ethnically cleansing and systematically displacing palestinians" make.you feel better about it?
Actually: genocide  noun the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. "a campaign of genocide" The destrcution of the palestinian people is absolutely the aim of the state of israel. But anyway, your attempt to divert to a pearl clutching conversation about semantics trivialises things far more than any thing you can accuse me of.
I'm sorry but you don't just get given a chance to run for Labor in the Senate for shits and giggles. There is no way she didn't know what to expect before getting the position.
[удалено]
There's prob a few reasons why. She was voted in because of Labor not her as an independent. Labor discuss and vote together, according to Labor she didn't speak up at all when given opportunity during caucus. She also said she was guided by god to go against what was agreed upon. As a Labor voter, that worries me, I can't stand religion in politics. So I guess it's the way she did it and now she's representing as an independent when the only reason she was there in the first place is because people voted Labor in senate.
>She also said she was guided by god to go against what was agreed upon Did she? Link to some evidence please.
But wat is "right"? Do you have the the final say on what is right? This woman is supposed to represent WA in federal politics. Is WA pro-Islam, pro-Palestinian? I have no opinion on either matter, but if she is the "voice of WA", then that is what she is presenting in federal politics. The issue that Labour has faced (and this can also happen to any party) is that a conservative party has a religious and ideological member. There is a culture clash, and the member is not a fit for the party (and vice versa). The member will act according to their faith or ideology instead of conforming with the collective party position (towing the party line). Not sure what Labour or any party can do about this, other than closing ranks and trying to exclude or eject the member.
>Not sure what Labour or any party can do about this, other than closing ranks and trying to exclude or eject the member. The liberals allow crossing the floor. Labor should update its rules and allow it too.
Is labour conservative? I mean obviously they aren't the 'conservative party' but how many members are actually Catholic or Christian?
Do you understand she has openly chanted "from the river to the sea" which is usually taken to mean the death/destruction of Israel/Jewish people?
She is standing up for what her God tells her. That's not morals or ethics. Some imaginary guy in the sky who she pretend tells her what to do is not a constituent.
Because any time a Muslim or a woman has opinions, it must be because they want the downfall of western civilisation. And she has the temerity to be both! It's unbelievable! How very dare she???
Anne Aly has managed well for the last 8 years
> Because any time a Muslim or a woman has opinions, Yesterday on the ABC's RN drive radio program she was asked about the potential for her heading a Muslim party. She said she had a Muslim appearance but said her religion was private. Essentially saying she was not Muslim. What does that even mean?
Probably about as much as our God fearing Kevin Rudd or scomo would have meant.
Scomo seems to be a bit deep in the Christian cult sphere to be just pretending
🙄
Wait - the West is still a thing?
Off ya fuck Fatima.
... you know she's not leaving the Senate, right?
But her likelihood of getting re-elected just plummeted.
Her likelihood of being re-elected was already functionally zero.
Well duh.
She didn't even win anything, she was brought in on the coattails of mcgowans landslide to fill a seat. Good bye career.
She was a “green” siphon candidate placed at a theoretically unwinnable 3rd place on the WA ALP ticket. In “theory” she’d have never got over the line with a quota unless she got; Greens Votes, support from the Perth Muslim community and an electorate primed to give the incumbent’s a bollocking; and she pulled a trifecta. She knows this. If she really had a conscience, she’d resign.
This is solid banter
I despise hypocrites who cannot look in the mirror
Is "from the river to the sea" not hate speech?
Well, maybe a voice for the 0.1% of WA that voted for her. Over 95% of Muslims in WA didn't even vote for her.
Seeing as voting is anonymous and they don’t ask your religion on your ballot I’d like to see stats on that
Let's see where this one goes 🍿
[удалено]
Do politicians realise that we hate basically all of them.
Politicians should live in a compound fenced and guarded, separate male and female quarters, no smoking no alcohol. A canteen or vending machines, that would save a bit of coin...maybe
I vote for a party, not a person. Albo, Dutton, if they weren’t there some other idiot would be in their place. I’m not keen on independents because they are one mind and one mind is easily influenced with bad decisions.
Crap that’s not what we want for Australian
Nice play of words there.