ECAJ speaks out on the summoning of the Israeli ambassador

December 5, 2012 by J-Wire Staff
Read on for article

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has responded to the summoning of Israel’s ambassador Yuval Rotem to the Department of Foreign Affairs over the announcement that Israel plans to go ahead with the building of new settlements…

Dr Danny Lamm

President Dr Danny Lamm said: “It is disappointing that the Foreign Minister is so one-sided in his public statements about where the obstacles to a two-State solution really lie.

When are we going to hear him call for an end to the racist incitement against Jews in Palestinian schools and media?

When will he demand that the Hamas Charter, and for that matter the PLO Charter, be scrapped once and for all?

When will he publicly express his impatience with the string of excuses invented by Abbas for refusing to return to negotiations?

Settlements are not the barrier to peace.   Israel dismantled all the settlements in the Gaza Strip in the pursuit of peace and it merely spurred Hamas and other groups to higher levels of aggression.  Every peace offer Israel has made has been rejected and followed by renewed Palestinian violence . The settlements issue will be resolved when borders are agreed.  The Foreign Minister should instead be insisting on the Palestinians repudiating the so-called ‘right of return’ which, of all the cores issues, makes peace impossible.”

Comments

40 Responses to “ECAJ speaks out on the summoning of the Israeli ambassador”
  1. michael says:

    Good onya Danny keep up your good work just ignore all the fringe extremist Lefty Jewish 5 th communists ACJC, AJDS, IAJV, Jstreet, NIF, Ameinu, Progessives, Leobeck etc etc or more aptly ‘Palestinian useful idiots.’

    Burdy

  2. Ben Eleijah says:

    Here is an incomplete list. Britain, Sweden, Finland, EU, Italy, Barzil, Australia summoned Israeli ambassadors.

  3. Otto Waldmann says:

    WHO CARES WHAT THE LIKES OF BEN and all on his side think and “have to say”. To hell with them.
    People spend endless nonsense here arguiing with all knds of idiots who invade with impunity our space and disturb the necessary job of addressing politicians who are currently playing irresponsible games at the expense of justice, rational and, most importnatly, decency in public life,
    ECAJ is a bit more outspoken on the current situation created by the Labor Government and so insidiously advocated by its Foreign Affairs Minister.
    Bob Carr has been advocating all manner of arguments against Israel from the moment he took on hs new job. In the old job he offended profiundly the Jewsih community, Israel, when , in an open confrontational way, he handed over the Sydney Peace Prize to Hannan Ashrawi.
    Thus Bob Carr has ceased to be considered a friend of our community and his latest exploits only endorse his status of an active opponent of our Zionist ideals.
    Our leadership should pay a visit in person(s) to the FA Minister and voice with resolute determination Israel’s stance. Jews in Australia in 2012 must be proud and curageous, strong in their determination to put forward what they really think and that “thinking” must be a perfect reflection in the language of the communal leaders of what their constituency, the Jewsih community thinks:

    WE ARE DISGUSTED WITH THE CURRENT AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ATITUDES TOWARD ISRAEL !!!.

    Let us also get rid of the Bens and their accolites from a forum that must provide only positive support to a cause which does not need its enemies right in the heart of our debating platform !!!!

    • Ben says:

      I can assure you that not everyone in the Jewish community in Australia shares your views..or your fascination with capitalising.

      Preaching to the choir is not debate Mr Waldmann and if our community curtailed discussion in the way you suggest, it would certainly be the poorer for it.

      Nothing that I have ever said is disrespectful, hateful or extremist and I welcome intelligent discussion from all sides – you would do well to do the same.

    • Rita says:

      WE ARE DISGUSTED WITH THE CURRENT AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ATITUDES TOWARD ISRAEL !!!.

      And so are quite a lot of non-Jewish Australian voters and tax payers, I am one of them.

    • Ben Eleijah says:

      The unmistakable sign that hasbara has run out of moral and intellectual content – ad hominem abuse, smear and slander.

  4. John says:

    The ECAJ is the roof body and represents the Australian Jewish Community. The President Dr Danny Lamm has a responsibility to speak out as he has on this occasion and others to ensure that the interests of our community are looked after.

    As Dr Lamm said the comments by Bob Carr were one sided, Danny did and said what was required to be said — Kol Hakavod.

    We need leaders with the caliber of Dr Danny Lamm who are not backward in coming forward if the needs arises.

  5. James says:

    “The Foreign Minister should instead be insisting on the Palestinians repudiating the so-called ‘right of return’ which, of all the cores issues, makes peace impossible.” So when will Israel end it’s “right of return” law which allows Jews like myself who’s family is NOT from Israel from “returning” i.e. immigrating?

    Sure Israel removed 4,000 settlers from Gaza and has added 10s of thousands of settlers to the West Bank. If you give with one hand and take more with the other you aren’t really giving are you?

    • david says:

      You ask:

      “So when will Israel end it’s “right of return” law which allows Jews like myself who’s family is NOT from Israel from “returning” i.e. immigrating?”

      Because it is the Jewish National Homeland legally sanctioned by the League of Nations.

      • Ben Eleijah says:

        That is only a half truth. There are 60 plus UN resolutions on Palestine and Israel. AS Israel likes to point out GA resolutions are not enforcable and the resolution on partition was a GA resolution. It expressly forbids dispossession of people and the occupation of Jerusalem. Zionists merely used the resolution to announce the state unilaterally and began the forcible expulsion of Palestinians even before they declared the state – The massacre at Deir Yesin was conducted even before the declaration of Israel.

  6. Gina says:

    I am sorry but I do not understand why the right of return would make peace impossible. Many young Israelis are able to obtain European passports because their parents were born in European countries such as France, Germany and the UK. Why should Palestinians who were born in the place now called Israel not be allowed to return to their country, and why should their children and grandchildren not be entitled to Israeli passports?

    • david says:

      Gina

      Because 8 million Arabs would claim to be entitled to such a right and because Israel was never their country. Sovereignty was vested in Great Britain as the Mandatory appointed by the League of Nations. The UN Plan calling for partition into an Arab State and a Jewish State was rejected by the Arabs who then started a war to get rid of the Jews. The Arabs lost. What gives them the right to return?

      If they owned property they should be compensated as should the Jews that were driven out of Arab countries. The UN would do worse than set up a tribunal to deal with any such claims and use the billions wasted on UNRWA to pay out successful claimants.

      • Gina says:

        I still don’t understand what the problem is – surely Israel is a democracy and does not discriminate against people on the basis of their ethnicity? International law says people have the right to leave and return to their own country which must mean that the Palestinians who left when they lost the war still have the right to go back to their homes. I am of European heritage and I am allowed to leave Australia and return when I want. If I have children when I am overseas my children have the right to come to Australia and Aboriginal people have the same rights. And of course the Jews who left other countries to go to Israel, whether by choice or coercion should have the same right to return to those countries.

        • david says:

          Gina

          No point repeating what I have already told you – that you apparently have been unable to absorb.

          You will just have to continue in your present state of not understanding.

          So be it.

        • Otto Waldmann says:

          Yes Gina , we got it :YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND !!!
          It is so blatantly clear that you are both viciated by mental retardation prejudice against Jews and incapable to fathom clear political realities, offering instead incredibly absurd – let’s say STUPID – retorts dwelling peristently on notions that are so akin to basic hatred that one wonders what kind of poison plils you take each morning with your strict diet of paint stripper porridge.

    • Vilmos says:

      France, Germany and the UK CHOOSE to allow descendants of expatriates to become citizens. They are not OBLIGED to do so by international law. They do this as a matter of policy because this policy helps them to counter-act low birth rates and aging populations and because descendants of expatriates also share, and will therefore reinforce, the ethnic and cultural identity of the majority. These countries have decided that such policies are in their national interests. The policies have not been imposed on them. Not all countries have these policies. Every country has the sovereign right to determine its migrant and refugee intake. Diaspora Jews have a right under Israeli domestic law to migrate to Israel not because they are “refugees” returning home (most of them are NOT refugees) but because they are part of the Jewish people and Israel is the State of the Jewish people (just as France is the State of the French people, Germany is the State of the Germans etc). If and when the Palestinians get their State, they too will be at liberty to allow the descendants of Palestinian refugees to immigrate to Palestine, but they will not be entitled to force some other country to take them

    • David says:

      It’s very simple, Israel is defined as a Jewish state. Since the arabs claiming a right to return are not Jewish, they have no right to return, what is so difficult to understand about that ?.

  7. Vilmos says:

    Brian, your logic is even worse than your spelling. It’s “borders”. Israeli policies in place since 2004 have prevented all new settlement building or expansion of the municipal boundaries of existing settlements . Israel’s recent announcement is consistent with that policy, so any current or future growth in settlements will not take up any additional land nor reduce the viability of a future Palestinian state. All the much discussed construction in settlements has taken place within the existing boundaries of existing settlements, which take up less than 2% of West Bank land. Even if Israel annexed all of the land on its side of the security barrier (which it has publicly refused to do) it would take up no more than about 8% of the total area of the West Bank. On at least 2 occasions Israel has offered to compensate the Palestinians for any annexed portion of the West Bank by ceding an equivalent area from within pre-1967 Israel. Get over your prejudices and learn some facts. Danny Lamm is right. The real threat to a 2-State solution is the bogus claim of a “right of return” by people who are the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th generation descendants ad infinitum of the small number of actual refugees from 1948 who are still alive.

    • Brian says:

      You’ve missed the point. World reaction is not about 2% of the existing settlements, but at what appears to be deliberate act of spite that would have cost Isr nothing to avoid.

      You are too quick to dismiss the impact of settlements in E1 or elsewhere on a future Pal state – see response to David below – or the deep hurt this causes, so you are not being objective.

      And it is wrong to say that because the Pals have some unreasonable demands, israel is justified in creating new obstacles.

      There is no moral equivalence between the Pal’s application for UN recognition and the expansion into E1.

      You and others have resorted to obfuscation and insults (Carr is apparently an anti-Semite according to someone) to avoid addressing the criticism head on.

      • david says:

        Brian

        Once Abbas took the ill advised step to approach the UN he was in breach of the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map which forbade either Israel or the PA taking any such action.

        What follows is the direct result of that action. More is certain to come.

        Abbas has well and truly burnt his bridges. Whether Israel will throw him a lifeline is very unlikely.

        Would you if someone broke an agreement with you?

  8. Vilmos says:

    Brian, your logic is even worse than your spelling. It’s “borders”. Israeli policies in place since 2004 have prevented all new settlement building or expansion of the municipal boundaries of existing settlements . Israel’s recent announcement is consistent with that policy, so any current or future growth in settlements will not take up any additional land nor reduce the viability of a future Palestinian state. All the much discussed construction in settlements has taken place within the existing boundaries of existing settlements, which take up less than 2% of West Bank land. Even if Israel annexed all of the land on its side of the security barrier (which it has publicly refused to do) it would take up no more than about 8% of the total area of the West Bank. On at least 2 occasions Israel has offered to compensate the Palestinians for any annexed portion of the West Bank by ceding an equivalent area from within pre-1967 Israel. Get over your prejudices and learn some facts. Danny Lamm is right. The real threat to a 2-State solution is the bogus claim of a “right of return” by people who are the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th generation descendants ad infinitum of the small number of actual refugees from 1948 who are still alive.

  9. Simon says:

    Dr Lamm. I believe that matters on Israel are best left to the ZFA or AIJAC.

    • Harry says:

      Simon – what a cheek! The ECAJ is THE representative body of Australian Jewry, being comprised of representatives of the state roofbodies which are elected assemblies. By contrast, AIJAC is a private body which is accountable to no one other than its elite group of financial backers.

      The ECAJ therefore has more right than any other organisation (except for the ZFA, which is also representative) to speak on issues affecting Australian Jewry.

  10. Charles says:

    The Borders are agreed on ..as per 1967. The settlements as well THEY ARE ILLEGAL ..ALL OF THEM!!! THEY WILL HAVE TO GO!!.. And if Dr. Lamm has a peoblem with Australia’s disappointment in Israel’s decision to keep on raping the West Bank…He has very few friends..as not even the United States approve of the Settlements!! The US continuously say that the Settlements ARE ILLEGAL.. fullstop.

    • david says:

      Charles

      Where do you propose the 600000 Jews move to?

      We are in an almighty bind dealing with a few thousand asylum seekers arriving in Australia.

      BTW the USA does not say that the settlements are illegal – because they are not. Jews have the right to settle in the West Bank (and even Gaza) by virtue of Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

      There are no borders – only armistice lines. There is a big difference. Don’t let your prejudices blind you to the facts.

      • Ben says:

        The settlements are considered illegal under international law even if Israel disputes this.

        Its not the 600,000 thats the issue this week for Isr but the numbers they intend to move into E1.

        The US has unequivocally said that the proposals for E1 are unhelpful.

        • david says:

          Ben

          The 600000 are certainly the issue following the UN vote.

          I hope you read my latest article “Palestine – Hands Up Those Who Hate Jews” explaining why – if and when it is accepted for publication.

          I can send you a copy if you give me your email address.

  11. greg says:

    B”H

    Settlements whether new or existing are not the barrier to peace

    Foreign Minister Bob Carr’s claim that construction in settlements constitutes a major obstacle to progress toward a two-state solution is misplaced and inflamatory when read by the Palestinians.

    Israeli policies have been in place since 2004 ,They were negotiated between President Bush’s administration and the government of Prime Minister Sharon,

    This policy sets out rules for building or expansion of the municipal boundaries of existing settlements .

    Israel’s recent announcement is consistent with that policy,

    So any current or future growth in settlements will not take up any additional land nor reduce the viability of a future Palestinian state, as the foreign minister alleges.

    Indeed, all the much discussed construction in settlements has taken place within the existing boundaries of existing settlements, which take up less than 2% of West Bank land.

    By contrast, the recent UN vote and unilateral Palestinian initiative was both inconsistent with international law on statehood, and a violation of the Oslo accords. “Dr Colin Rubenstein”

    • Ben says:

      Greg, Re, “Israeli policies have been in place since 2004 ,They were negotiated between President Bush’s administration and the government of Prime Minister Sharon, ”

      Did the Palestinians agree to this ? Perhaps Bush was negotiating on behalf of the Pals ? Israeli settlements should have never been allowed to expand, period. They are illegal under international law and no negotiation between Bush and Sharon changes that.

      Also: “future growth in settlements will not take up any additional land nor reduce the viability of a future Palestinian state”.

      How do you know this ? Are the 3000 settlements in E1 somehow going to float above ground so that they don’t take up additional land ?

      See my comments below to David’s post on impact of settlements. To trivialise the impact of settlements is wrong. If anything the symbolism of the act must be significant.

      • david says:

        Ben

        You continue to repeat the canard that the settlements are illegal in international law.

        Can you point to one legal decision that establishes that principle?

        So far as I am aware there are none. This view of their illegality is based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention – whose applicability is seriously doubted in view of the fact that the West Bank is not part of the territory of any High Contracting Party to the Convention.

        There is a counter legal view supporting the legality of such settlements that is based on the provisions of Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter – specific legal provisions dealing with the right of Jews to settle in the West Bank and Gaza.

        At best the issue is one of considerable dispute among legal experts.

        Unreservedly claiming they are illegal has been a major obstacle to concluding negotiations between Israel and the PA.

        This view is as invented as the granting of non-observer State status to the State of Palestine.

        Time to wake up and return to reality.

  12. Brian says:

    “The settlements will be resolved when the boarders are agreed”
    Yes, and the boarders will be agreed where the settlements stand so let’s just keep on creating facts on the ground and we can determine the boarders ourselves.
    Genius idea. Pity the world sees right through it.

    • david says:

      Brian:

      The settlements are built on 2% of the West Bank land. Israel has sought to claim less than 10% of the West Bank land in any settlement with the Palestinian Authority – which wants 100% of the West Bank land or an equivalent area in land swaps.

      What kind of negotiation is that?

      • Ben says:

        David, It’s not the % of land Isr expands into but where it lies and how this will eventually: (a) impede a functioning Pal state; (b) prevent access to other parts of that state; (c) impact water and other resources; and (d) the consequences of having to fortify and protect those settlers.

        The point, though, is that, other than out of spite, the % is now set to increase.

        Having acquired 53% in ’67 and now reaching 78% of ye olde Palestine, by what chutzpah can Israel expect further negotiations over E1? Even more staggering, how can they unilaterally expand into E1 which pre-empt a final negotiated settlement, yet in the same breath accuse the Pal of taking “unilateral” action by seeking recognition of a State.

        • david says:

          Ben

          These matters raised by you were to be nutted out in negotiations between Israel and the PA.

          Regrettably the PA walked away from those negotiations, refused to resume then without preconditions and then unilaterally went off to the UN signalling its repudiation of the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

          Any hope of negotiations with the PA in such circumstances is remote.

          Unilateral actions will beget unilateral actions from the other side – as events since the vote have proved.

          The saying – the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity – is as alive and kicking today as it was in 1937, 1947, 1948-1967, 2000, 2005 and 2008.

  13. Rita says:

    Bob Carr’s contempt for Israel, ergo for the Jewish people is as blatant as it is shameful.

  14. Shirlee. says:

    Hallelujah!! Finally someone speaks out.

    Thank you

    • Ben says:

      Really ? Thats all people seem to be saying on this site. It was only a matter of time before someone accused him of being an anti-semite…

      • Shirlee. says:

        Ben get a life!!

        • Ben Eleijah says:

          Hello the unfailing betrayal of intellectual and moral bankruptcy of Zionist Hasbara – personal abuse. Carr was not alone in summoning the Israeli ambassador – several European countries did the same. One can go ahead and call them anti-semite and dig up their Nazi past while ignoring the fact that Israel was cosy with the same countires until the UN vote.

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