She tweeted, "Indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza is no acceptable response to Israel’s unlawful bombings, because it harms civilians and it is therefore unlawful too. This should not obscure Israel's responsibility for maintaining its violent 55yo occupation and 15yo blockade of Gaza."
Immediately, terror supporters challenged her. Instead of defending her anti-terror half of the statement, she responded with empathy.
Like here:
Killing civilians is not a fundamental right under any interpretation of international law. Her cowering to those who defend it reflects a complete lack of moral fiber - which we would expect from the UN.
But she went further, calling into question the idea of a Jewish state altogether:
So even within the "1967 borders," the UN Special Rapporteur questions Israel's right to exist altogether.
Albanese then went on to write a new tweet to clarify her position on terrorism:
Palestinians' right to resist is inherent to their right to exist as a people. An unlawful act of resistance does not make the resistance unlawful. An unlawful act of an unlawful occupation makes the occupation more unlawful (and the list on the desk of the ICC Prosecutor longer)
Albanese is trying to toe the line of saying that she supports "resistance" but not terror attacks.
But what does that mean, practically?
No one is stopping Palestinians from having peaceful protests, or from choosing to boycott Israeli products, or from calling strikes. No one questions those rights.
But when Palestinians use the word "resistance," it means only one thing: terrorism. It means attacking Jews. It means stabbings and car rammings and suicide bombings and firebombs, throwing boulders on cars speeding along a highway and bombing buses and cafes. Hamas' translation is the "Islamic Resistance Movement." The Arabic Wikipedia article on "Palestinian resistance" lists the most gruesome terror attacks as examples (even though it pays lip service to "civil and popular resistance," it brings practically no examples.)
So when a UN Special Rapporteur says she supports "resistance," it can only be interpreted one way by those who use the term the most.
Either she is ignorant as to how the term is interpreted (even though her responders made that clear,) or she on some level agrees with is while knowing that she cannot publicly support terrorism. Either way, it shows the immorality, not the morality, of the UN.
UPDATE: See also this.
