"she should turn the ofher cheek? how does that go with survivors?" If she was forced to be there and had to fight or submit then you may have a point, but that was not the situation and so your following rhetoric is based on a false premise. You mischaracterised the situation.
I gave a detailed explanation for the underlying reason behind the anger towards her and suggest that you read it.
Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding - this is the result of her decisions.
Considering that a recent Newspoll suggested that the coalition has 36% of the primary vote, it is not surprising that she would potentially annoy a third of the population including non-coalition voters who believes in common decency or "being the better person". It should therefore be no wonder that the post received many upvotes.
