Join Israel boycott, CUPE tells members

[scarberiankhatru]

"There is little likelihood of another big war involving Israel or its neighbours, so if the Palestinians are hoping that will help them, they can forget it."

Uh, ok, if you say so. We'll see how friendly they all are when the oil and water run out in the area and the U.S. is conquered by China.

And if you're just talking about "in my lifetime because everything after that is irrelevant," remember that the Jews waited an incredibly long time for Israel to be created (and even then only after a little thing called WWII) while the Palestinians have been waiting for just a few decades. The dynamics of the Palestinian situation will change when no one is still alive who was actually born in "Palestine."

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

and the U.S. is conquered by China.

Conquering the USA will not prove as easy as Mah'kam and Scah'bow. LOL Okay, time-out for Abeja for political correctness training.

 

[babulahori]

"For starters, does CUPE boycott Cuba? Or does it boycott Saudi Arabia? Or how about boycotting Iran? Does it have a nice long public list for boycotting other governments or regimes? In the name of fairness, I certainly hope so. Also, in the name of fairness, maybe they should boycott the new Palestinian government, since it believes in the destruction of Isreal. It takes two to tango, after all.
"

If people regard majority of the Palestinians as Jordanians,then majority of the Jewish people in Israel are also immigrants from places as far as Russia,Poland etc.What was the background of Sharon?
The reality is,Palestine was never a separate state,it was a part of the Ottoman empire,and included in the territory or province of Syria,goverened locally by Damascus.
So if they shud boycott Iran,they probably shud have boycotted Israel in the 80s,when their nuclear program was exposes,talk abt double standards!

 

[babulahori]

"People have lived here since Biblical times but now Middle East expert Abeja has declared the land unliveable. Quick, everyone out of Bethlehem! "

Besides,does Abeja want to prove that people who have scarce resources shouldnt have sovereignty?With that arguement,most countries in Africa are up for grabs by any "civilized"country powerful enough to conolize it.
For some people,freedom is more important than prosperity,bcoz when u attain the former,the later can be achieved with dignity and motivation.
btw,getting back to your point abt the demographics,isnt it true that Jewish ppl from around the world relocate to Israel to go to the promiseland?
And the "friendship" that you talk of is more like a master slave situation,whereby U.S. supports dictators in the region(Egypt is one example),jordan is also a monarchy.When the public of these countries is still against the Injustices by Israelis,you will see enuf fuel for terrorism.This is a lose lose situation,although it might benefit the powerful on both side for their own personal/financial gains.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Besides,does Abeja want to prove that people who have scarce resources should’nt have sovereignty?

Sovereignty is not a peoples’ or nation’s right. Throughout history, sovereignty is gained, defended, enforced and lost through military action and diplomacy. Canada was founded on the natives’ and then France’s inability to secure sovereignty over the territory. Today, Canada may not be able to hold sovereignty over the Arctic, as we see American and other nations’ military and civilian vessels entering our waters without permission. The Palestinians were unable to defend or enforce their sovereignty over Palestine, and thus are now a lost, stateless people.

With that arguement,most countries in Africa are up for grabs by any "civilized"country powerful enough to conolize it.

Yes. From the 1700 to the 1960s, most of Africa was “grabbed†by more powerful countries. Even today in Africa, peoples who are unable or unwilling to defend their sovereignty are crushed by those more powerful, such as in Rwanda, Somalia and Eritrea.

For some people, freedom is more important than prosperity,bcoz when u attain the former,the later can be achieved with dignity and motivation.

I imagine that’s what Arafat, Hamas et al told the Palestinian youth, “just keep fighting, put up with your misery, it’s Israel’s fault that you’re poor, once the Israelis are beaten we will have prosperity.“

btw,getting back to your point abt the demographics,isnt it true that Jewish ppl from around the world relocate to Israel to go to the promiseland?

Yes, and they’re willing, prepared AND able to defend their sovereignty over the land.

And the "friendship" that you talk of is more like a master slave situation,whereby U.S. supports dictators in the region(Egypt is one example),jordan is also a monarchy.When the public of these countries is still against the Injustices by Israelis,you will see enuf fuel for terrorism.This is a lose situation,although it might benefit the powerful on both side for their own personal/financial gains.

There has never been an Arab democracy. To blame the existence of dictators and monarchs in the Arab world on the USA demonstrates a complete ignorance of the region’s history. The USA has only been in existence for 230 years, while Egypt, for example, has been an absolute monarchy or dictatorship for over 2,000 years. Staying on Egypt, it was Britain and France that allied with Israel against Egypt in 1956, with the USA forcing the Euros to stand-down.

Sure, you’ll find those who believe that while in the past nations have crushed others to gain sovereignty, such as Canada, that this was ancient history, and that today’s people are somehow beyond this, and somehow now know it’s wrong. I become very frustrated with those who think we somehow live in a different, more enlightened time, which takes an almost arrogant view of humanity’s history, i.e. we have nasty histories, but we’re much better now. Let’s get something straight, the Palestinians will never, ever gain sovereignty unless they can gain it through military or diplomatic strength and alliances. Sovereignty has always been gained and lost as such. In my short lifetime, I’ve seen sovereignty challenged by outside forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Haiti, Panama, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Jordan, Rwanda, Somalia, Libya, Chechnya, Falklands and a host of others. The only reason the Europeans get along without fighting now, is that they’ve found diplomatic means to deal with sovereignty issues. Our timeline in humanity is no different than that of the Romans or Aztecs, we will have long periods of peace, with periods of war, with challenges to sovereignty, won or lost on the battlefield or across diplomatic tables.

 

[bizorky]

Today, Canada may not be able to hold sovereignty over the Arctic, as we see American and other nations’ military and civilian vessels entering our waters without permission.

Don't give them ideas.

 

[ganjavih]

Yes, and they’re willing, prepared AND able to defend their sovereignty over the land.

Yet they continue to live with the risk of being blown up in a bus or at a cafe. That's a high price to pay to prove that you're the tough guy who is able to cling on to some small slivers of land.

Your assessment of human history may not be inaccurate, but it's incomplete. Oppression by a state often has consequences, often for innocent civilians. British civilians paid the price for the colonisation of Egypt, American civilians have paid for America's unwanted presence in the Middle East and Israeli citizens have paid for the occupation of Palestinian territories. And, yes, the Natives were conquered to make way for present day Canada, but we are still feeling the after effects of colonising an already inhabited land. The effects of slavery are still felt in America. As Malcolm X once said, the chickens eventually come home to roost. Being the tough guy and flexing military muscle does not bring long term peace and stability. Personally, I'd like to live in a world where oppressed people don't feel the need to blow each other up. To me, that's much more desirable than being able to say, look how strong our army is. Oppressed people fight back, they always do... and sometimes it's ugly.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Personally, I'd like to live in a world where oppressed people don't feel the need to blow each other up.

I'd like a peaceful world too, but that would by default require an end to oppression. That will never happen.

To me, that's much more desirable than being able to say, look how strong our army is. Oppressed people fight back, they always do... and sometimes it's ugly.

And usually the oppressed people become the oppressors of others. The Jewish people are the perfect example, but so are Americans, having fought for freedom from the British, then enslaved hundreds of thousands of Africans. Today is no different, we see black Africans rising up against white farmers in Zimbabwe, taking the land for themselves from perceived oppressors, but now they've got freedom, they're starving due to lack of land/farm skills/management, and now depend on the west for aid, likely percieved as further oppression.

 

[paulbali]

"Sovereignty is not a peoples’ or nation’s right. Throughout history, sovereignty is gained, defended, enforced and lost through military action and diplomacy."


That's like saying freedom of speech is not a human right because throughout history that freedom has been lost and gained in changing political circumstances.

Sovereignty is a moral concept, the national analogue of the individual right to autonomy. That it *is* sometimes lost does not mean that it is morally *right* that it is lost. An 'is' doesn't make an 'ought'.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

That's like saying freedom of speech is not a human right because throughout history that freedom has been lost and gained in changing political circumstances.

In countries where freedom of speech is a right, it is due to people fighting to gain it, and then enshrining it into law as a right. America did not have freedom of speech under the British, in the USSR you would be arrested China-style for speaking your mind; in both cases the population fought to gain the right to freedom of speech.

The concept of universal human rights is purely UN-speak. Speech, shelter, life, these are not human rights, unless you can gain and enforce/protect them, usually by banding together into like-minded countries or communities, and then building a Constitution to outline the newly obtained rights, and building an enforcement infrastructure to protect these rights (i.e. police, justice, military, etc.). if you can't stand up for your rights, you don't have any, unless others are willing to stand up for you.

 

[paulbali]

"The concept of universal human rights is purely UN-speak"


One can have a moral right to something without the political means to enforce it. We may, just in virtue of being persons, possess certain rights, but that does not imply that everybody is able to actualize and enforce those rights politically.

The concept of rights is not a purely legalistic one; it has moral grounding also.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

^ It's a legal concept because it has moral grounding.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

One can have a moral right to something without the political means to enforce it. We may, just in virtue of being persons, possess certain rights, but that does not imply that everybody is able to actualize and enforce those rights politically.

That is certainly a valid way of looking at the foundation of rights, and I agree, we should use a moral compass to determine rights.

To actually obtain and maintain your rights, you must be willing to take action. That was my original idea. Your violent neighbour will not care that you have a right to life and property, unless he knows you or the police will enforce your rights through equally violent consequences.

 

[Darkstar416]

Toronto's United Church to boycott Israeli goods

Jun. 28, 2006. 01:00 AM
STUART LAIDLAW
FAITH AND ETHICS REPORTER

The United Church of Canada's Toronto branch will today unveil a boycott of Israeli products and companies doing business with its military to end what it calls the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.

The move comes on the heels of a similar controversial move by the Ontario wing of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which last month voted to support an international boycott campaign against Israel to protest its treatment of Palestinian refugees.

"We want to commend that position," said Frances Combs, co-chair of the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada's task force on Israel.

The boycott is being undertaken only by the 300-church Toronto conference of the United Church, not the church as a whole.

Combs's task force was asked three years ago to devise a plan for implementing a resolution passed by the Toronto conference to pressure Israel to leave the occupied lands. That resolution has never been made public until now.

The plan will call on Ottawa to require that products originating in the occupied territories be labelled differently from those coming from the rest of Israel.

The group will then ask that occupied-territory products be boycotted by church members.

"This is not a boycott against Israel," Combs said, adding that only occupied-territory products are to be targeted. "We affirm the right of Israel to exist."

The group also wants the church and its members to divest from companies supplying the Israeli military, and will be pushing for the church as a whole to adopt similar measures at its general council meeting in Thunder Bay in August.

A 20-page resolution to be debated in Thunder Bay also calls on the church to invest in Palestinian companies.

Bruce Gregersen, who heads international programs at the United Church's national office, said the occupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza since the Six Day War in 1967 has had a destabilizing effect on the entire region.

The church has few investments that would have to be sold off, Gregersen said, since it tends to avoid military suppliers. But a policy of targeting Palestinian companies for investment could have a positive impact on the lives of people in the occupied territories, he said.

Ontario CUPE president Sid Ryan said he welcomed the United Church move.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

They're a strange group the United Church. Once they came out in support of gay marriage (in total contradiction of scripture) I think their credibility as an organization that stands up for its beliefs fell apart; so to see them standing up on international matters now is odd. No, I don't want to debate the ins, outs, ups and downs of gay marriage, if you're for it or against it, that's great, it's a free country, but any Judeo-Christian church should at least support the basic tenants of the bible, and homosexual acts are absolutely prohibited in the Old Testament. Yes, we can find strange laws in the bible that don't apply any more by any standard, such as money lending, or milking your goat on a Sunday, etc....but these are not listed as mortal sins, which is what sodomy, murder, etc. are considered.

Again, I'm no bible thumping right-wing socon Christian, but the United Church is one messed up place. How can they hold up a bible and bless a homosexual union? They're in complete contrasdiction of each other. Of course, if Bin Laden can use the Koran to support mass murder, I suppose anything is possible in religion.