AIJAC responds to Carr’s settlements remarks

August 9, 2013 by J-Wire
Read on for article

The Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council’s Dr Colin Rubenstein has responded to remarks made by Foreign Minister Bob Carr declaring Israeli settlements “on Palestinian land” illegal.

Dr Colin Rubenstein

Dr Colin Rubenstein

In a prepared statement Dr Rubenstein told J-Wire: “It was disappointing to hear the remarks made by Foreign Minister Bob Carr outside Lakemba Mosque at the celebrations to mark Eid al-Fitr on Thursday.

While we commend Senator Carr for recognising that Palestinian statehood aspirations require ‘respect for the right of Israel to exist’, it is unfortunate that he did not take the opportunity to also recognise the need to ensure Israel’s security, to call for an end to all rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and incitement by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas against the Israeli population, or to reiterate Australia’s support for the current peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

His opinion that ‘settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law and should cease’ is highly contentious. Any implication that the West Bank is sovereign Palestinian territory – something it has never been – prejudges core issues of the peace process that must be negotiated.

We call on the Foreign Minister to place realistic and informed support for a negotiated two-state peace at the centre of Australia’s approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues, and to refrain from one-sided statements which prejudge the outcome and complicate peace negotiations. “


13 Responses to “AIJAC responds to Carr’s settlements remarks”
  1. Gil Solomon says:


    You say “we have taken their country”.
    What country?
    Who were the leaders of this country?
    What currency did they use?

    Here are a few historical facts that you should absorb.

    In biblical times all of what is now Israel and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) was Jewish.

    When the Romans conquered the territory they named the entire area “Philistina” in order to rub salt into the wounds of the defeated Jews by calling the place in honour of their ancient and mortal enemies, the Philistines.

    By doing so, the Romans acknowledged that the owners of the territory were Jews. Down the centuries the name Philistina was anglicised to Palestine.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, if one were referred to as a Palestinian it was automatically implied that he or she was Jewish. Decaded later, Arabs cleverly commandeered the term “Palestinian” and people like yourself have fallen for the propaganda and bought their message. The facts are that Palestine was a land mass administered finally by the British until the 1947 Partition Plan. The rest is modern history.

  2. John says:

    Let me guess… Nahum Goldmann, David Ben Gurion, and Begin were self-loathing ‘lefties’? How EXACTLY, do the five books of Moses constitute a real estate deal spanning millennia?

    “If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: ***we have taken their country***. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them?”

    “There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that [the Palestinians’] fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there.”

    – both citations quote David Ben Gurion, quoted in Nahum Goldmann’s ‘The Jewish Paradox’, published 1976. Goldmann founded the World Jewish Congress and served as its president for 26 years.

  3. John says:

    Please. You’re only fooling yourselves, and doing a fine job of it. On the ’67 War being ‘defensive’…

    “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
    — Menachim Begin’s address to the National Defense College, 8 August 1982 (Can be verified by searching at the government of Israel’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs!

    “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
    — Mordecai Bentov, a wartime member of the Israeli government, the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar, 14 April 1971

    “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
    — Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin, Le Monde, 28 February 1968

    “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Days war, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”
    — General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as Israeli chief of staff, quoted in Ma’ariv, 4 April 1972

    “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”
    — General Ezer Weizman, war-time Israeli Chief of Operations. Also quoted in Ma’ariv, 4 April 1972

    From “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews – Volume 3”, by Alan Hart, a British journalist with 40 years of experience covering the Middle East.

    • Otto Waldmann says:

      Inebriated by incongruities , delusional, wondering in a terminal state of venom OD, this “John” ( just another John ) cannot come with terms with:

      – deranged hatred against everything Jewish/Israeli commonly found at all palestinians of sorts and their fellow travelers have been, for starters, sufficient reasons for Israel to keep a vigilant eye on them right there where it comes, their own Jewish land whatever new and farcical names some would give it.
      – solid data prior to the 1967 few hours war where the poor losers were rattling sabres of destructions, alas only to cop it real good
      – losers MUST be pleased with their right deserts, frothing at mouths of hatred notwithstanding
      – current status of a heavily corrupt lot is expected happiness with what Israel shall dish out to them.

      Not happy with outcome, another 50 years of waiting wont be a problem. In the meantime more real estate shall ornate the same Jewish land.

      John expected not to recover from acute condition as displayed right here.

      OK, I feel sorry for him…………………….

  4. steve says:

    its not just mr carr,but the Israeli government also bought into the misinformation by agreeing to refer to the jordanians who lived west of the jordan river as palestinians….they never should have

  5. Henri says:

    Possible valid solution, let’s change government and relegate to the dustbin of History, the giver of the SYDNEY PEACE Prize to a vicious enemy of ISRAEL.

  6. Gil Solomon says:

    If this is the best that can come out of AIJAC, then I call on Dr Rubenstein to resign forthwith. These are dangerous times and the politically correct statement he came up with falls far short of what is required and should be thrown in the garbage where it belongs.

    It makes me sick that Dr Rubenstein uses the phraseology:
    “While we commend Senator Carr for recognising that Palestinian statehood aspirations require RESPECT FOR THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST” etc.

    Dr Rubenstein is apparently appreciative that Bob Carr graciously accepts Israel’s RIGHT TO EXIST! This is the denigrating language of others not Jews and for an AIJAC leader to repeat this sickening mantra is appalling.

    Dr Rubenstein, the following is what you should have said in your prepared statement.

    You only would have had to quote what Melanie Phillips said recently in response to the furore made by the EU in relation to this:
    “This is an act of malevolence. But the fault in large measure surely lies with Israel. For although some may find this incomprehensible, Israel does not make to the world the one case that matters – why Israelis are fully entitled UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW to build homes in these territories; and exactly how Britain, the EU and the UN have grossly misstated and misapplied that international law”.
    You could then have gone on that these territories were seized in defensive wars and that is the basis of this law.

    At the beginning of the 20th Century if one were referred to as a “Palestinian” it was automatically implied that he or she was Jewish. Decades later, Arabs cleverly commandeered the term “Palestinian” and people like you Mr Carr have bought the propaganda. The facts are that Palestine was a land mass administered finally by the British until the 1947 partition plan, when only a small part was allocated back to its historical owners, the Jewish people.

    Finally Mr Carr, it is only by good fortune that these so called “Palestinians” have Jews as their enemies. Only Jews would indulge their ludicrous claims and be prepared to sit down with them in good faith in spite of the relentless lies, propaganda and acts of terror. No other country but Israel would have tolerated this turmoil on its doorstep from day one but would have reduced large tracts of the West Bank and Gaza to rubble long ago and without any warning whatsoever.

    So Mr Carr, don’t pretend to lecture Israel on international law or morality, issues which you are obviously not familiar with.

    Dr Rubenstein, if you said ANYTHING resembling the above you would have done us proud.
    However, I feel you are like many of our current leaders, steeped in political correctness and unable to say what needs to be said. Your ways have been tried and are a proven failure. It is time for you to step down and call for others in the community to step forward and assume your role.

    • Paul Winter says:

      Well put Gil. AIJAC and other community leaders must stop being ever so diplomatic and they must start to speak plainly. Israel has more right to Judea and Samaria than the heirs of aggressor nations who migrated to the Palestine mandate with British encouragement. Plain speaking leaders would have told Carr that he is a an ex journalist and a legal ignoramus. so he ought to keep his mouth shut. He should have been told that the only contentious matter was if there is such a thing as a “Palestinian” Arab; there is no dispute that under the Balfour Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations (Treaty of Sevres), the land is assigned to the Jewish people. It is sickening that our leadership fails to denounce Carr for crawling to the mohammedans to get their vote. He is untrustworthy and despicable and should be plainly told that.

      • dannykid says:

        When Yehuda and Shomron are refered to as occupied territory, the language should be changed and reinforced: yes, it is occupied land. It is occulied Jewish land. It is occupied by arabs.

    • dannykid says:

      Gill, you write: “You could then have gone on that these territories were seized in defensive wars and that is the basis of this law.”

      how about, instead of “seized” we change the language to “liberated”?

      That IS what happened, right?

  7. Lynne Newington says:

    He and others of his ilk wouldn’t be interested, Bishop Pat Power was another one that comes to mind.

  8. steve says:

    Well put,but at least Carr has shown his true colors-publicly

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

Leave a Reply to John Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.