It is a good point however Likud took 5 dud attempted coalitions before coming back in power. Bibi was about to go on trial for embezzlement. They were not that popular.
Unfortunately while Likud are still not popular, political pundits say the Left would be very unlikely to form a coalition government in the next election.
Admittedly Crikey accidentally made it sound worse by taking it out of context but they may not have had access to the video (which has since been posted in this thread).
Nevertheless, a one-state solution cannot work because Hamas are not seeking what this guest is talking about.
Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri.. [in an] interview, which aired on a Libyan television channel... referred with indifference to the number of Palestinians who have been killed in the Gaza war, calling this "the price we have to pay," and remarked that the women of Gaza will compensate for the loss by "producing" more babies than those who have been killed.
ProPals throw accusations of "whataboutism" when someone tries to discuss nuance as often as Zionists throw "anti-Semitism" when they are criticised.
The two points remain unaddressed by you:
Hamas hijack aid and are complaining now that IDF wants to control the distribution to prevent this.
Hamas could surrender for a swift end to the war.
everything Hamas does is also lsrael's fault. lsrael created Hamas. They funded Hamas deliberately as a way to destabilise the Palestinians.
Indeed. Bibi favoured Hamas over Fatah and for cynical reasons as you point out. You are not talking to a one-eyed football mentality person.
Hamas (being right wing fascists like Likud) should have known the consequences of Oct 7 well in advance but they naively thought they could rally Arab neighbours to battle like in the past.
From what I can tell, the average ABC worker is on the right side of this.
The average worker is Left wing and therefore agrees with Hamas' position. I am Left but often disagree with them on the Gaza issues. In fact their dodgy reporting on Al Ahli hospital early on lost them their credibility.
I have not seen any news organisation consistently report "fairly". The only example of even-handedness was a pair of entries from a blogger a couple of months into the war (probably still valid - let me know if it has dated)...
The Post is literally summarised here in my Lemmy feed with:
During the interview, Nasser
Mashni made a pointed remark that it was time 'for Palestine to be free, from the river to the sea'
That could well be why the interview was pulled. One could argue whether that slogan is sinister or not. If sinister they could have aired it without the slogan (but some would argue against platforming someone with that view).
These are the actual issues it seems, certainly not whataboutism.
EDIT: Turns out this Crikey article is not paywalled (unlike most of Crikey). So I read it and platforming should not be an issue since it says the guy is a regular.
The closing paragraphs are:
Crikey received a statement from the ABC on Wednesday morning, a day after this story was published, which said the interview had been uploaded to the broadcaster's website and iview accidentally.
"The original content was done as a live-to-air interview as part of broader coverage and was not intended to be published as a stand-alone clip. It was mistakenly uploaded and when that was noticed it was taken down," a spokesperson said.
So he is calling for the elimination of Israel? Or is he calling for a one-nation state where a Palestinian majority will supposedly conduct a democracy without misogyny, homophobia ignoring the Hamas agenda to expel all Jews?
Am well aware there are a growing number of Jews with an agenda to expel all Arabs from Gaza. I wouldn't want ABC propagating sloganeering from them either.
Likud certainly don't want it unfortunately. Horrible situation.