Australia’s 2011 U.N. Israel-Palestine Report Card

December 19, 2011 by J-Wire Staff
Read on for article

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has released a statement on Australia’s activities within the U.N. with regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Dr Danny Lamm

President Dr Danny Lamm said: “The entire collective body of resolutions that are passed each year in connection with the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the wider conflicts in the Middle East are repetitive, one-sided and focus disproportionately on Israel, effectively giving a leave pass to the intransigence and extremism of the other actors in the region who remain hostile to Israel’s very existence.

Such an approach has demonstrated its futility many times. It acts as a disincentive to the parties to return to negotiations and is wholly counter-productive to the achievement of a just and lasting settlement of the conflict based on the principle of two States for two peoples – Israel as the State of the Jewish people living in peace side by side with a Palestinian State. 

There have now been seven occasions when Australia’s voting record on the UN’s one-sided resolutions have been less supportive of Israel than previously, including resolutions on Jerusalem and sovereignty.  Three changes occurred this year.  We are very appreciative of the government’s overall record of supporting a speedy return by the Palestinians to direct negotiations with Israel and working towards a two State resolution of the conflict.  However, the changes that have occurred in Australia’s voting record only serve to undermine these commendable objectives.”

Comments

5 Responses to “Australia’s 2011 U.N. Israel-Palestine Report Card”
  1. Otto Waldmann says:

    Paul Winter you are incredibly WRONG !!!
    A President of ECAJ is not just a simple Jew , like you or me. Once he becomes a Leader he is already at the National level of dealing with OTHER National Leaders. He may be a medical specialist, an accountant or even a plumber, but once a President he MUST adopt the manners and language of LEADERS, of important people. A President is at once a DIPLOMAT, a Statesman. He may or may not talk to you and I and, if he does it, he is bound to smile benevolently, like all politicians do, conveying the subliminal message that, although you are a shlemil, I shall grant you the benefit of utter contempt after which I must run to a meeting with someone REALY important.
    A President’s language MUST be circumspect and least committal, like all diplomats, Presidents and such.
    BACKROOM, CONFIDENTIAL encounters are the backbone of a President’s M.O., stuff that may ( preferably may NOT ) be disclosed at ANY TIME.
    Most importantly, they are prohibited from engaging in direct encounters on sites, publications etc. with critics from the community they represent ; such is the height of their instant elite importance.

    When they retire or are replaced with another such President, they become even more taciturn, keeping to themselves all those lethal secrets of their achievemnts. Once they are awarded some Australian order, they pin it on their lapels and, then, really are not expected to say or do anything at all.They can only hope to ENJOY their own heavily attended funerals and at least half a page in the AJN and, most importantly, a mention in the JWire to which nobody will comment.
    So there….

    • Paul Winter says:

      Sorry Otto, but plain speaking like when Begin told off the USA ambassador, beats kow-towing to , cynics, bullies and ignoramuses. When Livni agreed to enter the White House by the servants’ entrance because the Arabs would not meet her if she entered by the front door or when Netanyahu stayed on while Obama went to dinner or when he failed to hang up when Clinton berated him, are not acts of diplomacy, but of cowardice and the acceptance of humiliation. A better way to perceive the need to assert one’s dignity, and hence to speak plainly, is to note how political leaders respectfully accept the demands of aggressive mohammedans that their lies be accepted as truth, and that concern be shown to their completely undeserved dignity. In short there would be far less need for our leaders to be diplomatic if they would not be so diplomatic to start with. And that an open, honest and principled approach would actually earn them respect.

  2. Paul Winter says:

    David Singer, is of course correct; the conflict is religious rather than territorial, nationalistic or political. Being, religious, it is ideology based and hence insoluble via rational means unlike reality based disputes. One side or the other must prevail, and justice and logic means that the jihadis must be destroyed, before they destroy not only the Jewish people’s homeland and Jews, but also the West.

    Dr Lamm speaks well and persuasively. But as the President of the ECAJ, he should be less diplomatic and just say what needs to be said. Australia under our present Foreign Minister is sucking up to our enemies for reasons of future possible national prestige (if we earn enough mohammedan brownie points), to tie up the mohammedan vote and to butter up the Greens. Lamm should have said that Australia should have followed Canada’s principled lead in standing up to jihadis and their camp followers.

  3. david singer says:

    The ECAJ in its statement has wrongly identified the 130 years ongoing conflict between Arabs and Jews as the “Israel-Palestine conflict’ rather than the “Jewish-Arab conflict”.

    Trying to localise the dispute to one involving only the territory once called “Palestine” has been one of the great successes of the Arab propagandists ongoing campaign to denigrate and delegitimize Israel.

    The Arabs were allotted 99.999% of the captured Ottoman territory after the conclusion of World War 1. The Jews were allotted just 0.001% of that territory. The Arabs have never accepted that territorial division – which still remains the source of the conflict today.

    The utter stupidity and futility in rejecting that territorial subdivision remains with the world today and has led to the needless wars and bloodshed that have erupted since 1920 and are ongoing in 2011.

    The Arabs have rejected proposals to settle the dispute in 1937 and 1947.

    Six Arab States tried to snuff out the Jewish State in 1948 and failed. Three wanted to do so in 1967 and failed again. There have been other confrontations with various Arab States since then and offers of settlement that have gone begging.

    In 2011 the Arab League comprised of 21 sovereign states supports the PLO – invented in 1964 – as the sole claimant entitled to demand 100% of the territory lost by Jordan to Israel in 1967 – even though Jordan abandoned any such claim in 1988.

    The PLO also demands the scalps of two members of the UN – Israel and Jordan – and the incorporation of their territories into one State called “Palestine”. The Arab League member States sit in the United Nations and support the PLO at every opportunity.

    Let them do so – that is their prerogative.

    The ECAJ should not be seen to be adopting the misleading language of those who have bitterly opposed – and continue to oppose – the recognition of just one Jewish State in its biblical, historic and internationally sanctioned homeland.

    Words count. Make sure they do.

    • Rita says:

      “…Words count. Make sure they do.”

      Unfortunately, some good words have been gang-raped so much by the Jew-hating propaganda machine that the noble ideas behind them are buried under so much crap, I fear cleaning them up and bringing them back will prove futile. Words and word combinations like: Liberation, United Nations, Human Rights, Security Council, (Arab) Spring, Democracy, Refugee, freedom fighter, Martyr and more …

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments