Australian News

719 readers

116 users here now

A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.

Rules

Follow the aussie.zone rules
Keep discussions civil and respectful
Exclude profanity from post titles
Exclude excessive profanity from comments
Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with [satire]

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Banner: ABC

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone

DemSpud@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Australia to review all 66 military export permits to Israel approved before Gaza conflict (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 months ago by brisk@aussie.zone to c/news@aussie.zone

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 8 points 7 months ago

So little, so late. And no doubt just another way to delay taking any real action. That's all they've done so far - delay and obfuscate.

[+] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Are you suggesting the current military offensive is not in response to the attack in October last year?

It sounds like you are taking an unnecessarily narrow definition of "trigger," and painting that as some sort of bad faith "rampant antisemitism."

[+] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I agree with you there, and think your active wording is better.

What confuses me is that I don't see the conceptual jump from the Guardian using a passive voice which de-emphasises the Israeli government's responsibility in this, and rampant antisemitism. Particularly when you give examples of how this is a larger problem in media.

Unless I'm missing something here, is it not more likely to be just a questionable grammatical choice with no ill intent?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago

If I can attempt to explain what I thought @NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org was doing (certainly, it's how I interpreted their initial comment), it's that they were playing off of the very, very common refrain from Israel and its supporters that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Sometimes they'll be quite explicit about that, but they'll also often pretend otherwise while levying the "antisemitism" critique at anyone who calls out the actions of the state of Israel.

A reasonably common response to this is that actually, no, that is itself antisemitic. Because it's implicitly tying the actions of one country with the Jewish people. And so the Israeli government and its supporters are being antisemitic when they try to deflect blame for Israel's actions by calling the blame antisemitic.

Naeva was doing something kinda similar to that here. Except this time instead of being about deflecting the blame, it was about how the article implicitly phrases it as though Israel had no choice but to commit genocide. It was just automatically triggered by the Hamas attack.