Pure political cowardice. Won’t use an already built & functioning water recycling plant because they haven’t the guts. They’ll build a far more expensive, brand new desalination plant instead Same cowardice Malcolm Turnbull & Peter Beattie showed by refusing to back Toowoomba’s Mayor 15+ years ago

Singling out & trying to compare or ‘rate’ specific atrocities ignores the overall context. One group is the occupier & immensely well-armed ongoing persecutor. The other is occupied & oppressed, under long-term siege with ever growing loss of land & no end in sight. It is not two equal groups.

Yes. A decades long process of well documented oppression, persecution, killing, jailing & occupation of lands tends to provoke an aggressive reaction. And Israel is self-defending by also openly targeting & killing civilians on a large scale (as opposed to the usual drawn out day to day targeting)

Of course. I meant the attacks from Gaza into Israel in general were provoked. Deliberately targeting, torturing & killing civilians is never ok, but I’m sure the Israeli govt is saying their attacks on Gaza were provoked. That’s not stopping them killing & collectively punishing civilians there

When the recent attacks broke out in Israel, I thought at least this time no one could possibly pretend the attacks were “unprovoked”. But I was again wrong in hoping there’s a limit to the US/UK/Aus deadly delusional doublethink about the decades of visible, ongoing & brutal Israeli govt oppression

CJcaitoz.bsky.socialOct 8, 2023 2:28am

Isn’t it strange seeing the same oddly specific word chosen again and again in statements by politicians and pundits across the political spectrum? When you lay them out together it sounds as suspicious as someone who always introduces his spouse as “my wife, whom I do not beat.”

They're Repeating The Word 'Unprovoked' Again, This Time In Defense Of Israel

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): We’re seeing the western political/media class bleating the word “unprovoked” in unison again, this time in reference to the massive m...

You should send them a Blue Sky invite so they can set up an account. (I’ve got some, if you know any sound people who might want one)

None of this is to argue against Yes. There’s the potential for the Voice to have more influence due to the symbolic impact of it being in the Constitution. But I don’t think that factor would make it immune from becoming sidelined in the future, should Parliamentary politics go in such a direction

I think a bunch of lawyers would argue that given the specific context in which the Voice is mentioned, that would sufficiently strongly implied as to be required. Having said that, it will still be up to Parliament to determine eligibility (as they did with elections for ATSIC, for example)

Or they could just ignore it like the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation report, that involved *ten years* of consultations & only had 6 key recommendations. ATSIC was only able to be abolished because the Labor opposition supported it in the Senate. Same with NT intervention & suspending the RDA

It does rather seem like the old Recognition proposal reheated, with a committee tacked on. It’s true it couldn’t be formally abolished if it’s in the Constitution, but it’d be easy enough for a future government to defund or restructure & stack it( if they had the Senate numbers)