Crikey readers react to Australia’s recognition of Palestine

Tom Greenwell says: Australia will recognize a “militaryized state”. This is not a state, it’s an oximoron. A semilitarized situation cannot defend itself by definition. And therefore, it cannot really use sovereignty. So it’s not a shift, it’s a charade. Palestine is the continuation of the same Charade, where it is a “peace process için for decades of occupation and settling, for decades. And protests were organized by the forces against the genocide. I’m sure America is shaking in their boots in response to this announcement and others.

Graham McCorry writes: I hate to confirm the right views of the Murdoch-endocined Australian media (or right-wing Israel interpretation) in any way, but let’s be realistic: this decision is nothing more than political soothing the moral anger associated with the murder of many civilians in Gaza.

Let me introduce you to 1933 for those who are not familiar with the contracts – to the legal ones – to those who are not familiar with the needs for the recognition of the state of state. Montevideo Rights and Duties of States ConventionStating the qualifications for the international recognition of the state: a permanent population; A defined region; A government; [and] Capacity to enter relations with other states.

Whatever you think of Palestine – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza – Palestine does not satisfy any of them at the moment [above] The criteria, but the first, as the British lawyer Malcolm Shaw Kc said at a legal opinion appointed by Lord Mendelsohn, “The regional scope is uncertain”, “There is no single government authority on the whole region” and “the capacity of Palestinian authority, including states, including other institutions, including other conditions, conditions, including conditions, conditions, including conditions, conditions, including conditions, other conditions, including conditions, other conditions, including conditions, other conditions, including conditions, other conditions, including conditions, other conditions, including conditions, other conditions, including conditions, other conditions. Parties, including.

As Shaw observes: “The normal criteria for which the government resorts to as a state is that they should be able to use the effective control of this region and be a government that can make independence in their foreign relations.”

This cannot be said as a state that can be recognized by any field or organizational structure or control or any combination of the Gaza or West Bank. This “recognition ın of various Western countries will not be able to achieve anything.

Editor’s Note: Shaw is a legal adviser for Israel in the International Court of Justice Court of Justice (brought by South Africa). British lawyers for the Israeli website.

Jill Dixon says: Like [Shahram Akbarzadeh] Said has the right to veto at the American Security Council, and Trump predicts whether he will veto. It has not yet shown such a slope. Therefore, the Australian movement may be insignificant at the end of the movement, only another unsuccessful attempt to make state efforts in Palestine.

Even if Trump accepts the recognition of Palestine in September, it may be too late. The world has made very little to make real efforts to prevent Israel’s destruction in Gaza and West Bank and its massacre. A few countries acting with real will are relatively weak and are not supported by countries with both power and real will. Will this change?

Even though there is still enough Palestinians who live in a country to create a country, and perhaps with the sufficient member of the diaspora who wants to return, maybe hope. But even now, no one is talking about the hunger planned by Israel and the deportation of the population to neighboring countries. I suspect that the future is terrible until the world recognizes this fact and acts effectively to deal with it.

Tatlin writes: We really think of this. Will the recognition of Australia change something on its own? Clearly no. Will our voice in a growing nation choir will be important? Yes, we must be on the right side of this problem. Most importantly, recognition acknowledges that the government finally listens to most of the Australians and represents our views that it returns to us and the world.

In the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, in the past, the Palestinian Human Rights and the Struggle of the Palestinian in the past, in the past, in the past.

Zeke writes: [The ban] It is presented in a really honest way. I even doubt how much Australians will disturb them and place them at a greater risk of security. They probably think it won’t affect them because they’re over 16 years old. They’re more fooling them.

Social media is neither harmful nor good. Not how the players use the motives and the platform itself, but how they use it. This will especially harm the isolated LGBTQI+ children.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. It should not be surprising that we fall into a pile.

AP7 says: Proof of social media [platforms] It is clear that doing a bad job to mediate content. It is also clear that they deliberately make less mediation as part of business models. These facts alone are good reasons for any parent to restrict their children’s access. However, the biggest point – this is the biggest problem and what the government should focus on.

More than children is a public health problem for the population as a whole. Tobacco, alcohol, junk food and gambling are industries that are largely dependent on addictive damages and damage caused by excessive consumption. The attempt to reduce the addictive nature of these products strongly resist the multiple distracting things thrown to remove the reform from the rail. However, we organize them and accept that we are aware that they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.

As well as the basis for the social media model, these companies operate similar to other addiction production industries; To push “region outputs”, emotional stimuli, small dopamine strokes (likes, shares) and pushing it without a click before sleep. Most importantly, content is interesting in terms of how well it serves for addictive purposes for companies. It is a policy puzzle to ensure that they are interested in polling both their real content and how they are presented.

I doubt that Australia has yet to have an answer, but it seems to have developed a more sophisticated understanding of the problem. We expect to see most of the “anti-Eastern state” clichés, which are released by waiting-wilderness for waiting and echoing by the people they can absorb.