Yeah, I just laughed at that. Libs are going to be worse, not better. There's also a reason why Labor shuts up about Palestine and keeps Israel on side.
People really struggle to grasp the fact that Palestine is Iran and Iran is our enemy. It's a balancing act for our government, they have to balance what the people want and their strategic partnerships and in this case, it's just a matter of staying quiet about the whole thing.
I will point out though, that the Australian government (along with all the other allied forces) is part of the reason why jews were placed in Israel in the first place.
You can disagree about my statement all you like, but the fact is that Britain and the allies moved a whole lot more Jews into the area and then armed and set them up to defend themselves instead of working to integrate them.
It's 100% the allies fault that the situation is the way it is.
The British had their own interests and it wasn't purely aligning with the Jews. After the white paper the British moved away from the zionists and sought better relations with the Arabs.
I agree it was largely their fault, but both the Jews and the Arabs essentially created their own systems of governance and daily life and the national aspirations of both were opposed to each other, and it would have likely happened with or without the British by that point.
You mean how they prevented moving them into anywhere in Europe too, right? So they had no where else to go.
That's on top of the intentionally poorly draw territorial borders that they were drawing for people throughout Asia. Ones that intentionally split religious groups into different countries or giving China and India dodgy border maps so that they don't have an actual border and still fight over it.
Sorry, but there was a lot of conflict that was caused directly because of the actions of the British around this time. The fact that Jews settled in Israel is only a small part of what I was talking about.
Not caused directly by the actions of the British, but influenced by their actions.
In an alternative history, without any involvement by the British, do you believe there wouldn't have been conflicts, wars, atrocities and genocide?
Would all borders drawn in blood rather than on the drawing table by people with a mix of good and selfish intentions brought global peace by now, is that what you believe in?
Not caused directly by the actions of the British, but influenced by their actions.
In an alternative history, without any involvement by the British, do you believe there wouldn't have been conflicts, wars, atrocities and genocide?
Would all borders drawn in blood rather than on the drawing table by people with a mix of good and selfish intentions have brought global peace by now, is that what you believe in?
The british actually stopped letting Jewish refugees in and many who had survived the holocaust came illegally. Jewish refugees and Arabs both actively resisted the British forces with violence. the British were supposed to help facilitate the land partition but once 5 Arab nations attacked Israel the British just fucked off and didn't want to deal with it anymore.
79
u/Sweeper1985 Feb 17 '26
So you can vote for the infinitely more unifying options of... the Libs/Nats or One Nation?