Is there a quick link to this report?

I thought all civilized people recognize that comparisons to Hitler are disgusting and always inappropriate. Guess I'm wrong.

I certainly don't condone the comparison to Hitler, which is clearly disgusting and frankly (I suspect) meant to incite**, but what all did she say?



**I DO compare Netanyahu to Trump, however, which given their personal corruption and respective failure to place the welfare of their people first or to preserve core democratic values--is not a stretch. No one should apologize for making that comparison.

Link to tweet

have been going on for years now and follow a pattern where anybody who the Israeli/US partnership finds is being critical of their political/military conduct and they perceive as a threat to the status quo is labeled as "anti-Semitic" for their criticisms. From the very time of the creation of the office mentioned the US has failed to support it's work. That office that is tasked by the UN with reporting on conditions in the Occupied Territories has routinely been denied entry to the area for it's investigators and Israel routinely denies requests for information.

Despite the behind the scenes efforts of the US and open interference by Israel reports have been issued that are supported as factual by the large bulk of the international rights organizations. In fact she has been defended in 2022 by those who study anti-Semitism.

But I find it "interesting" to say the least about the statement by our UN Representative. No sense of our own immoral conduct in the recent past vis a vis Iraq? Full scale invasion and destruction of a country on a completely fabricated basis, the deaths of hundreds of thousands, forcing over 2 million to flee the country and leaving a war torn legacy that continues on to this day. The trillion dollar war all based on BS. Absolutely zero for any accountability for having done this. Clean your own doorstep Greenfield.

Albanese has been on record several times condemning the actions of Hamas and Israel both and I have no idea of what she has or has not said about the meaning/legitimacy behind the social media post people are referencing. I am aware of the statement beneath some pictures and she appears to make the comparison. It is certainly not appropriate but at the same time it does not mean that the work she has done in the position is not true and correct and I would remind people that it is not an office of one person but rather many people who have long distinguished careers in international law and human rights.

Even if she is removed it will not change what is factual that the UN office has reported. It also will not change the international "circus" that is created in supposedly having an international body for member nations to subscribe to and abide by international norms of conduct and yet we have the most powerful member openly refuse to comport itself to those norms whenever it pleases but yet insist on adherence by most others. It also is folly for a member nation to desire the benefits of membership and acceptance in the international community while at nearly every turn in it's history refusing to cooperate, refusing to accept responsibility and holding out for itself the right to go into any other member nation at any time solely on it's own authority and carry out military actions and kill people.

Hitting the "anti-Semitic" label on people is an old tactic that is well known. People who are genuinely anti-Semitic are of course reprehensible. But it seems that Greenfield and others in the international community have suddenly lost their tongues when it comes to their own conduct in arming death squads in Latin America, supporting dictators and abetting human rights abuses. Sometimes with a tinge of some reprehensible "anti" of their own. But Greenfield et al and ones before her would like us to focus on their whistling as they stroll past the graveyard. But some of us have eyes and minds and can criticize wrong without being "anti- Semitic". Perhaps Albanese isn't the only one who isn't fit for the job. Should she go? Maybe so but don't think the pot isn't calling the kettle black.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-maintains-warm-ties-with-myanmar-downplaying-a-human-rights-controversy/

not the anti-Semitic rapporteur?

missed me delineating that her comparison or endorsement of it certainly seems inappropriate and that perhaps she should go. I stand by every word of nuance I wrote about the situation. An extreme example of what I'm talking about is if the devil identified and condemned the actions of a mass murderer should I just likewise condemn the murderer and fail to condemn the devil for his similar actions just because he pointed out the other?

“Quick, look over here!” just isn’t going to cut it.

of "working on you" nor is it a defense of bad conduct. It calls out the fallacy that somehow she alone is controlling what the reports are from that office. It condemns hypocritical stances from diplomats. It clearly states that anti-Semitism is reprehensible and it calls her actions inappropriate on their face and notes that we do not have anything further from her on this. According to a large group of scholars of anti-Semitism who supported her in 2022 when she was attacked your conclusion about a history is incorrect. Furthermore your intimation that what I wrote is intended as distraction is also incorrect. I note for the record though the lack of a response regarding the support for the brutal government in Myanmar that is and has been carrying out major anti-Muslim violence against the Rohingya as well as snuggling with dictators like Orban. Netanyahu calling Myanmar Israel's "greatest friend in Asia" and sending them arms and intelligence support is perhaps something people would rather not talk about because it might cause them to be distracted. Perhaps it's like Netanyahu and company saying "standards of conduct for thee but none for me".

But who knows and anyway the world is only supposed to examine or look at one thing at a time I guess and to do so in isolation without regard to the behavior of the one who is the "champion of right and good" at the UN and the actions of the country she represents there and their friends. Now if someone in the diplomatic community without blood on their hands would like to condemn the apparent actions of Albanese in this instance I have no problem with them doing so. But I don't suffer hypocrites gladly nor do I accept them even if they should point to the bad behavior of someone else. In perhaps simpler terms if Roger Stone tells us bad things about Steve Bannon I am not going to hold off also pointing out the acts of Roger Stone. I have the capacity to deal with it all simultaneously and as I said I stand by every word I wrote.

That is obvious on it's face. It is the same for the ones I wrote about and their personal responsibility for their hypocrisy and bad behavior.

who was rightfully called out by President Biden’s UN Ambassador. This is not the first time that the vile anti-Semite Albanese has been condemned for her vile anti-Semitism.

Like I said, neither “Yes, but I have complaints about someone else” nor long winded gish gallops work on me.

You are free to write an OP on whatever your concerns, but this thread is about the vile anti-Semite Special Rapporteur Albanese and her latest demonstration of vile anti-Semitism.

fact that people can post comments like mine that are nuanced and contain perspectives different than yours isn't to your liking. My apologies that everyone who comments in threads doesn't have the exact same view as an OP.

“My nuanced perspective is that we should discuss something other than the topic of Special Rapporteur Albanese’s anti-Semitism” is hardly an effective tactic.

says something that someone is so easily "distracted". I quite clearly laid the question of the conduct at her feet. Apparently your problem is that other things were discussed along with it. So I note again all that I've said before as I conclude that apparently there is some difficulty in reading and understanding what was said in my post. That difficulty has then apparently lead to making false claims about my post. Oh well.

is anti-Semitic.

I looked up why it is considered antisemitic and while I don't agree with the logic behind it I am smart enough to know I don't have to. I don't get to define what is racist or offensive towards a group I am not a part of.
Thanks again,
Eko.