Francesca Albanese

She was right to be concerned about Israeli response:

Krishnan Guru-Murthy: Is that not clearly what they were trying to do on 7 October? Weren’t they just killing anybody they saw?
Francesca Albanese: I don’t think it was an act of genocide, it was despicable, it was inhumane, it was criminal, to the extent it hit civilians and it has been also documented by the Commission of Inquiry who has investigated what has happened inside Israel. I’m not going to question that. I’ve condemned the killing of Israeli civilians from the very first moment, also the abduction of civilians. But the reason why I’m saying that is that since the very first hours, there have been people in Israel saying, ‘oh, we have been victims of a genocide’, which has been used to portray the Palestinians as an existential threat for what they had allegedly supported happening on 7 October, and therefore justifying the brutal revengeful response that had happened. But this is the beauty of international law, that the Genocide Convention says, whatever the reason, whatever self-defence, even self-defence doesn’t justify a genocide.

Yes Albanese has 'commented' on 7 October, and very revealing comments they are.

A tweet 'The greatest antisemitic massacre of our century? No, @EmmanuelMacron. The victims of 7/10 were not killed because of their Judaism but in response to Israel’s oppression.'

On 7 October itself when any reasonable human was reeling in shock snd horror she tweeted 'Today’s violence must be put in context.'

It doesn’t matter who started it though, does it? We all now the difficulties didn’t start on 7/10, although that was a hideous provocation.

It’s a childish response to a tragedy “he started it miss”, a distraction to where we are now. It doesn’t excuse a bully’s behaviour, nor breaking of international law.

Albanese predicted 7/10 would be used as an excuse to wreak vengeance on Palestinians in Gaza. She also has commented on atrocities committed on 7/10.

One side started it and the other retaliated, now we have a war. It will only end when both sides agree terms (ceasefire) or one side surrenders. Obviously Israel won’t surrender because as we know, they are the ones with greater military strength. It’s the losing side that surrenders, or sometimes a ceasefire is agreed by both sides.

When you look at the ebb and flow of Israel-Palestine relations and the aftermath of previous Attacks/Wars/Intifada, and then add in our knowledge about what has happened after other wars, do you think that Israel would be best served to propose a ceasefire agreement in the style of a treaty of Versailles or one closer to a Marshall Plan.
In your view, has Israel been more Versailles or more Marshal Plan up until now? And do you think that the current proposals are the basis of a lasting peace? Do you think it is valid to hold the view that Israel has not behaved in a Marshall Plan sort of way, and therefore has created conditions where another war in the not too distant future is more likely?

'This all' didn't start on 7 October, but this war did. 7 October was a massive escalation, a declaration of war. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.

Could we please stop pretending this all started on October 7th also, it is insulting to people’s intelligence.

Even those with superior military power need to obey international law. Why are people avoiding wanting to discuss concerns Albanese has raised about this?

Recently, seven children were killed collecting water for their family near their home - a mistake according to Israel.

In 2024, half the water sites had been targeted:
"To take out over half of water and sanitation would be very difficult without intentionally doing so. So the pattern is evidence of either a reckless approach to civilian objects or the intentional destruction of them; these were not all mistakes," she added.
In response to our findings, Sara Elizabeth Dill, an international criminal and human rights lawyer, said: "What we are seeing is essentially siege warfare and the total destruction of Gaza, without regard for human life or human decency, or any attempts to comply with international law."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68969239.amp

Hamas are half the equation because the war is made up of Hamas on one side and the IDF on the other.

It’s true that one has more military strength but there are still 2 sides in the war.

One side started it and the other retaliated, now we have a war. It will only end when both sides agree terms (ceasefire) or one side surrenders. Obviously Israel won’t surrender because as we know, they are the ones with greater military strength. It’s the losing side that surrenders, or sometimes a ceasefire is agreed by both sides.

Nothing silly about the IDF exterminating Gazan civilians. Nothing silly about Netenyahu arming groups responsible for October 7th attack. Nothing silly about Netenyahu nurturing the next generation threat to Israeli people.

What a silly response to a serious post @SharonEllis .🙄

Quite
We also had a poster who said that Hamas were never going to win a war against the IDF without any consideration of what this might mean for innocent Palestinians and the power Israel has over what happens to them.

Israel is far superior in their military power, they are able to closely survey the Palestinian population in Gaza and control the Gazan borders. They have significant power over the Palestinians in Gaza, but pro-Israeli posters are completely unwilling to see what their obligations maybe to uphold international law in their actions despite their upper hand.

We’ve also not spoken about the situation in the West Bank.

This is too silly

That's an interesting take. Why do you think Hamas are half the equation in this war? Are they an equal to the Israeli government and the IDF?

And if it's a case of 2 halves, where do non Hamas supporting Palestinians fit? What about the non Hamas Islamist jihadis in Gaza being armed by Netanyahu's government? Gazan Christians? Women and children trying to access basic food and water to stay alive?

Her job mandate:

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur derives from the 1993 resolution from the Committee of Human Rights. The mandate calls on the Special Rapporteur:

1. To investigate Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
2. To receive communications, to hear witnesses, and to use such modalities of procedure as he may deem necessary for his mandate; and
3. To report, with his conclusions and recommendations, to the Commission on Human Rights at its future sessions, until the end of the Israeli occupation of those territories.

Well they are half the equation in the war 🤷🏼‍♀️

Would be strange if only the IDF were mentioned.

Back to what about Hamas I see!

So you have no problems with her findings, you just object to her not simultaneously doing another a report on something else at the same time?

Why could she not talk about both?

@MissyB1 @Everexpanding
By keeping the focus on Hamas and what Albanese has said and not said about them, it prevents the focus being on what she is pointing out about Israel in her reports. It’s not difficult to see through.

Reading some posts, it’s as if Hamas has the IDF on puppet strings and have forced them to drop dumb bombs, stop aid going into Gaza, use an aid delivery system that is resulting in multiple deaths. The IDF and Israel surely has some agency?

However- there’s no such thing as bad publicity and the more people focus on her, the more she is talked about on SM, perhaps people will ask why people are getting so upset by her and what her actual message is.

I'm concerned for how many civilians have died.

A completely avoidable war where neither Hamas nor the people of Gaza will have gained anything by the end of it.

The worse thing is it was obvious from the start that Hamas couldn't hope to defeat Israel militarily so I cannot understand why they keep fighting with more civilian deaths & destruction each day.

Yes all of that does need repeating, because some people on here keep trying to minimise the suffering and the death toll. Are you offended by the horrifically high death toll being pointed out?

TBH I can’t quite comprehend the mental gymnastics it must take to discuss civilian casualties in Gaza without mentioning the role of Hamas who started this war deliberately, and without providing any places of safety or demanding safe refuge for their civilians, as well as openly stating they need their blood to fuel the ‘resistance’, and calculatingly using them as human sacrifices, AND also refusing to surrender despite claiming mass civilian casualties.

That certainly is truly a virtuoso demonstration of the denial of reality!

Wow if there were medals for mental gymnastics, how can you discuss civilian casualties in Gaza without mentioning the role played by the massive bombs dropped by Israel, truly a virtuoso demonstration of the denial of reality

Why is it riduculous? Why is she not interested in harm perpetrated by Hamas?

If Albanese were impartial, why has she not investigated and reported on the impact on the amount of civilian deaths and injuries due to Hamas using civilians

What a ridiculous "argument".🙄 You expect her to compile all the reports on this conflict?

If Albanese were impartial, why has she not investigated and reported on the impact on the amount of civilian deaths and injuries due to Hamas using civilians as human sacrifices (which is actually more apt than human shields and Hamas has publicly stated that is what they are doing), and Gazan civilians having no places of refuge either in or outside of Gaza?

It’s pretty obvious to anyone with basic critical thinking skills that is going to massively increase the death and injury toll of civilians.

The ‘genocide’ lie can only be perpetuated due to the above so it’s clear who’s side she’s on and it certainly is not Gazan civilians!