United Church and Israeli Boycott - III
August 18, 2009 - 1:38pm
An interesting interview with Sid Shniad of Independent Jewish Voices, about the United Church convention, by Red Eye (Vancouver Cooperative Radio):
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
The National Post printed IJV's letter today.
Here's my question for Babblers: Given the limitations (and positives) in the proposal adopted by the United Church and given the factors that helped push it to back off endorsing BDS measures, what should its next local and national steps be over the next year?
I ask because it always helps to get some perspective from "outside", and because I want some ideas to take forward.The ideas in the previous thread were much appreciated even (or maybe especially) when we didn't agree. As someone on that thread pointed out, some strategy is needed if the church is serious about advancing the BDS discussion into some real action. Agreed... so, ideas please!
My position is the same as the previous thread. Nothing new happened here. Since about the early 1990s the United Church has been putting forward these types of resolutions and they have always been defeated. There is again nothing new that it gets referred back to local churches, that is why and how the resolutions keep returning every three years. And that is eaxtly what will happen again. One small group within a church will lead another similar resolution and it will be defeated again.
My buddy from Thunder bay who was delegate to the Atlantic commission tells me there was no stomach for a BSD resolution amongst many in the Council and this translated in a defeat of the resolution. Th sop to the few was sending it back to local churches for "prayer and reflection. Exactly what has been done in the past.
Green Grouch, I'm not a church member, and only sang in a Presbyterian choir for a couple of years to help a desperately ill partner find companionship, but I am, from that experience, sensitive to the needs of church membership. And my son-in-law takes my grandaughter to his parents United Church most Sundays.
My credentials established, may I suggest that discussion groups with hot-off-the IT world transmissions on the latest news and ino-depth columns to really come to terms with what the Holy Land looks like these days. Maybe even pose the questions as "what would Jesus do" in such and such an instance.
Anyway, I think that that way the leadership may develop some spine (they at the moment don't want to frighten away or turn off portions of a dwindling flock) by having the laity rise up after some in-depth discussion and demand " action or your ass is about to be fried." Something like that, anyway.
Gus's admonition is well worth heeding. The general membership of the UCC are not on the extreme and will not support resolutions that are unbalanced and unfair: much like most Canadians, present company excluded.
The question is why, you're company included. middle-class Canadians, and liberal Christians in particular, are so willing to tolerate racism?
Or even the most learned in the land, at all of the universities in the land, for that matter. Why will not middle class Canadians and liberal Christians along with the learned of the nation not rise up as one and cast down these.....whoops, here I am going all Old Testamentish again....
Because they do not accept (for good reason) your premise that israel is a racist state....that simple.
They do accept it. That's why they don't defeat them. They lack the moral fortitude, however, to fully act. Why a liberal church would fail to stand up for their own values is the question. Your contention, in fact, is laughable. You would have to be a sadist or a Zionist not to recognize not just racism but a particularly cruel and heinous form of racism in Gaza in particular but also in the West Bank and Israel proper,
Can you tell me, Jaku, what racist acts on the part of Israel, individual or institutional, have you denounced?
Also, what sets Palestinians in the West Bank, say, apart from settlers in the West Bank in that settlers are Israelis who benefit from Israeli citizenship and Palestinians do not? Why the difference? Why is it that a Jew from New York with European ancestry can fly to Tel Aviv and have citizenship and a Palestinian who was born near Tel Aviv can't? What is the difference between these two people where one has rights in a land he has never known and the other has no rights in the same land he has only ever known? Can you explain that? I have more, much more, but let's start simply.
Because they do not accept (for good reason) your premise that israel is a racist state....that simple.
I'm thinking a poll might prove you very, very, wrong there.
I do recognise the problem that some (a minority) of those voting for the premise might be racist themselves, however.
LTJ-- the poll idea is a great idea. so what is the question?
i doubt that we ie those who are engaged on the issue whether you support 1 palestinian state, a true 2 state solution or 1 isreali state would ever agree on the wording.
if the question is simply "is israel a racist state? yes or no with no other information. i think people will be suprised with the answer. No will be the majority answer.
And that is why the need for discussion groups reading reams of news stories from several sources - to overcome the serious shortcomings of the Great Unread. What do you think, Green Grouch? Church by church, a New Enlightenment?
I ithink you might be surprised jpj. Canadians are ahead of their government and political parties on many issues including Afghanistan. The issue is what are Canadians prepared to do about it? From the example of the UCC, watch from afar, tsk, tsk, and avoid offending very, very offensive people. Canadian political parties and governments have always backed racist regimes and failed to stand against racism when practiced. They are very good at "making amends" decades later, however, even while ignoring (or actively supporting) the current obscenities.
fm what is the poll question you would like to see?
How about: "Does Israel treat Arabs as second-class people?"
I would like to see more generic questions that avoids mentioning either Israel or the Palestinians. Such as, If a state had laws to to target a specific ethnic group in either a positive or negative way, would you describe those laws as racist, non-racist, don't know?
If two people populated the same land and one was granted legal rights while the other was not, would you describe those laws as racist, non-racist, don't know?
And so on ...
Hey FM, what's wrong with my poll question? I'll bet if you asked Canadians that, you'd get an 80% "yes".
Perhaps, but once you inject the words "Israel" or "Palestine" into a question, people divide into political or ideological camps which could color results of a survey. However, what would be interesting would be questions at the end of the initial survey that basically repeats the earlier questions but does mention Israel and Palestine just to see if and how results change.
It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.
I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.
Here's my question for Babblers: Given the limitations (and positives) in the proposal adopted by the United Church and given the factors that helped push it to back off endorsing BDS measures, what should its next local and national steps be over the next year?
I ask because it always helps to get some perspective from "outside", and because I want some ideas to take forward.The ideas in the previous thread were much appreciated even (or maybe especially) when we didn't agree. As someone on that thread pointed out, some strategy is needed if the church is serious about advancing the BDS discussion into some real action. Agreed... so, ideas please!
I'm really impressed with the UCC members who fought on in the face of CJC intimidation tactics.
Full BDS will likely continue to be avery hard sell, but there's things that can be done to (for instance) modify the terms of the Canada-Israel FRee Trade Agreement. Have you read the Kairos paper on Palestine campaign strategies?
--
"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake
Thanks for that article, FM! Another excerpt:
I'm really impressed with the UCC members who fought on in the face of CJC intimidation tactics.
Right I mean over 400 UCC Delegates and three CJC people at the general Council where only one could actually address the Council itself. Must have been very intimidating!!
Oh what's the point? People like Jaku will always be defenders of Israel, no matter who gets killed and what the cost is in human lives. Nice company we keep here.
There's no point, but luckily 99% of people here already know that the CJC tries to prevent debate by clumsy intimidation tactics ("You're antisemitic! Your conference on the Middle East is antisemitic!" etc) against critics of Israeli state policies. And they're influential enough to get grovelling apologies from the Toronto Star. However, I think it's pretty clear that they are losing the public opinion battle by this point.
I don't think it's clear at all. There is absolutely no reason for complacency.
There's no point, but luckily 99% of people here already know that the CJC tries to prevent debate by clumsy intimidation tactics ("You're antisemitic! Your conference on the Middle East is antisemitic!" etc) against critics of Israeli state policies. And they're influential enough to get grovelling apologies from the Toronto Star. However, I think it's pretty clear that they are losing the public opinion battle by this point.
Yes I do believe that dark inferences that jews have a dual loyalty is anti-Semitic. I also believe that suggestions Jewish leadership bribe MPs to curry favour for Israel is also anti-Semitic. Seems like the vast vast majority of UCC delegates at the general Council who voted to renounce these inferences that appeared in the supporting documents also felt the same way.
Yes I do believe that dark inferences that jews have a dual loyalty is anti-Semitic. I also believe that suggestions Jewish leadership bribe MPs to curry favour for Israel is also anti-Semitic. Seems like the vast vast majority of UCC delegates at the general Council who voted to renounce these inferences that appeared in the supporting documents also felt the same way.
You picked these two specks of fly shit out of a worthy resolution in order to attack it.
By the way, I find the financing of politicians and other leaders (for example, the AFN - discussed on babble at the time, and see this) by the CJC to do Israel junkets to be a blatant attempt to not only recruit their support, but to advertise their names in connection with Israel. These are deceptive and anti-democratic activities, for which I blame both the funders and the fundees. They're not "bribes" - I find them far worse than bribes.
Likewise, I have no idea why some idiot made reference to "dual citizenship", which even if true proves nothing.
But in both cases, there is nothing antisemitic about it. It is anti-Israel. Your inability to distinguish between the two is paralleled by those who use Israel's crimes to attack Jews.
The CJC claim was that BDS is antisemitic -- in fact, even discussing the resolution was beyond the pale, and of course that's what I was referring to Jaku. Still, nice use of Dear Leader Farber's misdirection smear tactics.
The Zionist racists have nothing but fear and intimidation in their arsenal. Once that loses effectiveness, all that remains is the raw, ugly truth of Israeli racism and cruelty. The smearing and intimidation is wearing thin.
The issue of centering out what is clearly a Jewish state for targeting above and beyond what would be expected for any Liberal democracy can be argued as a form of anti-Semitism. I know many here balk at the entire idea of Israel as a Jewish state but the mainstream certainly identifies it this way including the largest Protestant denomination in the country.
This in no way should allow Israel to be free of critical assesment. It is simply not anti-Semitic to be critical even hyper critical of Israeli policies. However until and unless those few in the UCC call for BSD resolutions against Canada (treatment of FN), USA (Iraq, Afganistan etc etc), and many other countries focusing solely on the Jewish state will rightly result in such accusations.
What utter nonsense. So, then, Israel's preoccupation with Iran proves Israel is a racist, anti-islamic state, more so than any of its racist policies against Palestinians? Having been equally opposed to White South Africa, as I am Israel, proved, no doubt, according to your mind, and those little minds of Zionism, that I am a white self-hater, yes? Or just racist against whites because, well, being of Irish ancestry my parentage is such that I am deprived of being officially British quality white?
And how is a state "Jewish"? Or Catholic? And if it could be, why couldn't South Africa be white? Or Wyoming? And if the Zionist supremacist ideology is legitimate, why isn't that of the Aryan Nation? Or any other white supremacist ideology?
And the so-called, by Zionist supremacists, Jewish State, is not being targeted "above and beyond what would be expected for any Liberal democracy". That is another racist, Zionist lie. It is being critiqued and recognized as a brutal, race based state in the exact same manner as was South Africa by people who have consciousness and a sense of justice. And Israel is being defended and it's racism promoted as "democracy" by the very same people and institutions who defended and promoted South African racism under Apartheid.
It is perhaps possible such lies and efforts to undermine the truth is effective among the television viewing majority with attention spans stretching back to the last scan of the TV Guide, but for the rest of us we lived through history and/or studied it. The most unfortunate aspect of Babble is that we suffer fools gladly.
...particularly those fools who have but one trick up their sleeves, which they display over and over and over again.
Suffer fools all you want but the truth is the truth and Gus Williams has stated facts that clearly you don't like.
Israel is seen as a Jewish state. You may disagree but Williams', point that even the UCC recognizes Israel as a Jewish state should tell you that mainstream Canada accepts Israel as such. Calling that racist and suggesting that Williams is somehow inferring you are a racist through some convoluted logic is just plain silly.
That they call their fascism "Jewish" does not make it so. That they oppress those who are not Jewish is racism, not religion.
Just because "the mainstream" has been deluded into believing that Israel is a Jewish state means little. They have been and are deluded about many other things too.
Interesting comment on Facebook from a progressive young insider:
"The proposals did come through the proper process, but they should have not been transmitted to the GC. I was at the Toronto Conference meeting where it happened, and was the last to speak at the "con" mic before the vote. It was the end of the weekend meeting, debate got cut short, and the room voted the wrong way. I've spoken with a number of people who voted yes who tell me they're embarrassed they made a mistake.
"That being said, there was no way the national level was ever going to support those petitions as they were. In fact, the background language was "repudiated" almost immediately. In that context the efforts of the CJC et al to make the United Church look like Hitler (that's a specific example, I got a letter from a lobby group that made that comparison) before the meeting had even begun were...um...unhelpful."
Wilf the impression is left that this "letter" inferring the UCC was Hitler-like came from the CJC. I need some clarification. Is that true. If so I will immediatley denounce the CJC.
And Lord Thunderin, what are you suggesting, that Jews who believe in a Jewish state of Israel are all racists? That's a pretty wide slime if this is what you are inferring.
Perhaps I should be concerned, given that you're an expert on how to slime people.
Israel is seen as a Jewish state. You may disagree but Williams', point that even the UCC recognizes Israel as a Jewish state
For those who belive the UCC at least made a strong statement, there you have the Zionist spin: The UCC recognizes Israel as a race based state.
And Lord Thunderin, what are you suggesting, that Jews who believe in a Jewish state of Israel are all racists? That's a pretty wide slime if this is what you are inferring.
Are you suggesting all Aryans who believe in a white state are not racist? That's a pretty wide level of tolerance for racial supremacy if that is what you are inferring.
That they call their fascism "Jewish" does not make it so. That they oppress those who are not Jewish is racism, not religion.
Hear! Hear!
The issue of centering out what is clearly a Jewish state for targeting above and beyond what would be expected for any Liberal democracy can be argued as a form of anti-Semitism.
I despise Israel and everything that it does and stands for. I guess that makes me an anti-semite in your twisted and ugly terminology.
There's a thread here where babblers are debating whether we should support a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. No one yet has accused those who oppose the Taliban as being guilty of Islamophobia. That's because we understand that just because someone calls themselves "Muslim" doesn't give them the power to speak in the name of all Muslims.
Likewise, when the U.N. discusses sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, no one calls such measures "Islamophobic" - even though everyone knows Iran is an "Islamic Republic". And yet, they are singling out Iran without even thinking to sanction the U.S. and others for their nuclear programs.
When you call the boycott campaign against Israel "anti-semitic", you are making a candid admission - that the world abhors antisemitism, but it does not abhor anti-Israelism. That's why you need to blackmail the anti-Israel forces with charges of anti-semitism.
Such dirty tactics will never work. In the short term, they will do much harm to the Jewish people, because some people will actually believe that there is something "Jewish" about these mass murderers and racist thugs. But people are not as stupid as you would like them to be.
Good question. The Facebook poster said "the CJC et al . . . I got a letter from a lobby group." Could have been the "et al."
Israel is seen as a Jewish state. You may disagree but Williams', point that even the UCC recognizes Israel as a Jewish state
For those who belive the UCC at least made a strong statement, there you have the Zionist spin: The UCC recognizes Israel as a race based state.
Can you show which resolution from the UCC ever made such a claim. If there is no such resolution or proof you should retract.
Don't think you are reading that statement correctly by FM, jaku
Wilf the impression is left that this "letter" inferring the UCC was Hitler-like came from the CJC. I need some clarification. Is that true. If so I will immediatley denounce the CJC.
I doubt you will, actually.
But for the time being, will you denounce this bit of slime that accuses the entire UCC of antisemitism for agreeing to discuss divestment?
To put it mildly, we were at once shocked and angered that offensive and untrue words such as these could emanate from the United Church....
My message to the delegates was clear. Any call for a boycott against Israel is a vilification of Israel so serious as to make any future relationship between the United Church and the Jewish community impossible. It would cause an irreparable rupture....
What we could not fathom was the venom against Israel, and the poisonous message of a boycott as official United Church policy....
The accusation made by Farber and his followers that any discussion amounts to anti-semitism is a terrifying effort at "libel chill." Will you denounce that? No, I don't believe you will.
--
"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake
Let me assure the United Church that Mr. Farber's blackmail is very remote from the best traditions of the Jewish people.
Wilf the impression is left that this "letter" inferring the UCC was Hitler-like came from the CJC. I need some clarification. Is that true. If so I will immediatley denounce the CJC.
I doubt you will, actually.
But for the time being, will you denounce this bit of slime that accuses the entire UCC of antisemitism for agreeing to discuss divestment?
To put it mildly, we were at once shocked and angered that offensive and untrue words such as these could emanate from the United Church....
My message to the delegates was clear. Any call for a boycott against Israel is a vilification of Israel so serious as to make any future relationship between the United Church and the Jewish community impossible. It would cause an irreparable rupture....
What we could not fathom was the venom against Israel, and the poisonous message of a boycott as official United Church policy....
The accusation made by Farber and his followers that any discussion amounts to anti-semitism is a terrifying effort at "libel chill." Will you denounce that? No, I don't believe you will.
--
"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake
BSD as described here in this thread is in my view anti-Semitic when only Isreal amongst all the nations of the world is targeted for such. Nothing here to condemn. In fact I commend it.
Let me assure the United Church that Mr. Farber's blackmail is very remote from the best traditions of the Jewish people.
Accusing Farber of blackmail is typical of how you argue Unionist. Farber had a point of view. Yes a very strong one and he expressed it on behalf of the majoprity of the Jewish community. I know you loath that but the UCC delegates could have dismissed his point of view. They didnt. They dismissed your point of view. I understand it stings and so namecalling and accusations are the best you can do.
You see how Jews are smeared by this association with Israel? And it is not the BDS movement which is doing it - they don't have a negative word to say about Jews. It is the increasingly desperate defenders of the murderous apartheid state of Israel.
You notice also the lie? Isn't Iran the subject of sanctions? Cuba? Isn't the racism, really, that Israel, a race based state, is not targeted for sanctions? Isn't the reason Israel is not targeted for sanctions is because the victims of their racism and cruelty is perceived to be muslims?
In fact, Israel is treated differentlt than other states. It's human rights abuses, war crimes, ethnic genocide, and WMD programs are tolerated, ignored, and/or defended even at the highest official levels, and shamefully, by liberal, Canadian churches.When was the last time, excluding George W. Bush and Blair, did Canada celebrate its relationships with an openly racist and brutal nation guilty of war crimes?
Frustrated Mess: That's a really good point.
Really the UCC has a BSD resolution against Iran? Wow, maybe Sudan will be next.
Ah, obstinance. Now, we see what the Zionists have to fall back on when the smears and intimidation fail: obstinance. They all run around, hands over ears, saying overly loud, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" or acting confused pretending they really didn't understand what you were saying--like guilty old men caught in a lie. These pathetic people managed to cause the UCC to fall away from the power and strenth of their own faith and convictions? Holy Jebus.
Thank you, Michael.
(
The point that you're so studiously trying to avoid, Jaku, is that these examples demonstrate there is nothing racist or prejudiced about boycotts and sanctions per se.
Out of curiosity, Jaku, when did Canada sign free trade agreements with Iran or Sudan? Where are the major media outlets giving extensive space to apologists for the regimes governing these countries? Where are the leaders of major political parties condemning criticism of these regimes as bigoted?
BSD as described here in this thread is in my view anti-Semitic when only Isreal amongst all the nations of the world is targeted for such. Nothing here to condemn. In fact I commend it.
That's what I figured. You and the CJC see pro-Palestian human rights activism modelled on the South Africa campaign as antisemitism. What a crock.
Will you be consistent and condemn the anti-apartheid sanctions as anti-Dutch Reformed bigotry? No, of course not.
Seems like the vast vast majority of UCC delegates at the general Council who voted to renounce these inferences that appeared in the supporting documents also felt the same way.
Nothing could be further from the truth. From an official press release of the UCC...
The Rev. Wendy Rankin, of Morden, Manitoba, said, "Boycott is a time-honoured method of making a point."
In noting that the United Church had previously participated in the Nestle boycott, and the boycott against South Africa in support of ending apartheid there, she asked, "Where has our courage gone?"
Said Varey, "Only an outsider can do something about it."
There are many in the United Church that recognize a violation of human rights and are willing to speak out against it. Don't think for a moment that you, Jaku, think for the rest.
The vote to defeat the boycott resolution passed by a wide margin. Thank you for proving that there were some who voted for the boycott. That we already know.
BTW an interesting op-ed today in the Toronto Star from a progressive faith leader in the Jewish community, Rabbi Dow Marmur:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/684918
If Dow Marmur had made a single mention of the issues within the state of Israel, or the concern of his "Liberal Jews" for the Palestinian people, I might accept your representation of him as "progressive".
Unfortunately, it seems he is nothing but an apologist for fascism, much like yourself.
These words reveal his deceit:
Despite pressure from groups within the church who seem to be victims of left-wing anti-Israel prejudices, encouraged by politicized professionals, many delegates saw reason and the damaging proposals didn't pass.
The Jewish faith is by no means dependent on the existence of a fascist state. On the contrary, the fascism of Israel is dangerous for all.
And Marmur's indication that there is some kind of conspiracy influencing the motives of the church is pure smoke and mirrors - there is a conspiracy, but it lies elsewhere and he is part of it.
Oh, come on LTJ, listen to the good Rabbi:
Now that's downright radical and revolutionary, never mind progressive! He is clearly saying there is a mathematical chance that trying to embarrass Israel is not exactly equal to the Nazi genocide of the Jews (at least in the "accepted" sense).
If this is a "progressive faith leader", imagine the discourse of the less "progressive" ones. That Jaku praises such fascist language speaks volumes for where his "mainstream" has flowed. ["Mainstream", by the way, is the favourite term of these defenders of Israeli racists and mass murderers - it is an attempt, in the accepted sense of the term, to marginalize all those who reflect the finest enlightened tradition of the Jewish people.]
If we rewind to 1948, it is very clear that the intent was for Israel to be a Jewish state. It would be interesting to examine what the positions of most progressive voices were at that time on the question.
The problem on Babble for some of us who oppose the behaviour of the Israeli government is that others don'tsee that as being enough. The creed seems to have to be one of accepting that Israel should not be a Jewish state. Some of us can't accept that position and are subject to all sorts of epithets for holiding it.
If we rewind to 1948, it is very clear that the intent was for Israel to be a Jewish state. It would be interesting to examine what the positions of most progressive voices were at that time on the question.
That's rather impossible unless you define what you mean by a "Jewish state".
Read the UN debates, the reports that came out of UNSCOP, the debate in the press, the Declaration of Independence etc. It will make it clear what the intent with the creation of the modern sate of Israel was. Many people on Babble think that the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was wrong. It makes debate difficult. Some see the creation of the modern state of Israel to be a rejection of Enlightenment principles. Chaim Potok in Wanderings discusses the tension and debate between Zionism and assimilation (I use these terms for lack of better ones off the top of my head.) The lessons of Dreyfuss, the late 19c. pogroms and ultimately the Holocaust was that Jews needed a state of their own in order to be safe. This wasn't an unreasonable position in 1948 although many did not hold it.
I was asking you to define what you mean by the term. If you accept another's definition, that one would be fine, too.
I'm not defining it. That will lead to a discussion about the definition and I have no interest in pursuing such a debate.
Caissa, you've chosen to place a great deal of weight on the following position: "The creed seems to have to be one of accepting that Israel should not be a Jewish state. Some of us can't accept that position and are subject to all sorts of epithets for holiding it." Given this emphasis, it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to define the term "Jewish state". Otherwise, you might as well have written "The creed seems to have to be one of accepting that Israel should not be X. Some of us can't accept that position and are subject to all sorts of epithets for holiding it." The refusal to define the term "Jewish state" renders your argument meaningless.
If we rewind to 1948, it is very clear that the intent was for Israel to be a Jewish state.
Whose "intent" was it? The inhabitants of Palestine at the time? The other countries and nations of the region? The Great Powers? Whose intent, Caissa? And have you read the UN partition resolution (even though it ignored and trampled the wishes of the Arab inhabitants)? Did it mandate a state where Jews (under somebody's definition) could obtain immediate citizenship but centuries-long Arab families could be expelled and never allowed to return? A state that could seize and retain lands won by war and establish colonies there (and I'm not just referring to 1967)? That's what the "Jewish state" is that we are being asked to recognize.
Why is that? What was the position of most "progressive" voices on homosexuality at the time? On the rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada? On complete legal equality between men and women? Of what conceivable interest is the position of "most progressive voices" 60 years ago, as if recognition of rights and freedoms has not advanced since that day?
Caissa, I have seen very few posts on babble which uncompromisingly condemn all the murderous, aggressive, and racist actions of Israel, while still supporting the view that Israel should be a Jewish state. If you are in that camp, then I consider you as an ally, even if we may differ on that issue. The U.N. has many resolutions condemning Israeli occupation and aggression. I don't scorn those by saying, "well, as long as they don't dismantle the Jewish state, they're useless". And of course, Caissa, you can still support the BDS movement while maintaining your view of the nature of Israel, can't you?
edited as redundant
Unionist wrote:
Caissa, I have seen very few posts on babble which uncompromisingly condemn all the murderous, aggressive, and racist actions of Israel, while still supporting the view that Israel should be a Jewish state. If you are in that camp, then I consider you as an ally, even if we may differ on that issue.
That is a good summary of my position Unionist. Thank you.
If you change that "should be" to "could be", that's a position almost everyone here would share.
Here's my question for Babblers: Given the limitations (and positives) in the proposal adopted by the United Church and given the factors that helped push it to back off endorsing BDS measures, what should its next local and national steps be over the next year?
GG, I hope the UCC presses on at the local grassroots level. Sanctions on South Africa took a long time to gain traction but they did work. It is a completely valid comparison to equate the emergent Israeli 'jewish state' with the former South African apartheid state. Supporting a boycott of Israel is not anti-semitism. Keep the message simple, keep the end-goal in mind.
I'm no expert at media relations, but the UCC needs to rethink its media strategy. The media can be your friend. There are good journalists out there who care and want to make a difference. Find some. They are not at the National Post.
Reverend David Giulian, moderator of the United Church of Canada, submitted a thoughtful and considerate 'blog' that was published by the NP in advance of the UCC meeting in Kelowna Aug 9-15. The agenda included debate on an Israeli boycott and Giulian was kind enough to diplomatically address the controversy in advance of the meeting.
What was published after that date in the NP after that was shocking. The NP attacked the United Church. its members. and most everything it stood for. I think the subsequent NP publications are facist, racist, anti-religious, anti-christian and filled with oblique hatred (since they only attack the UCC). The NP uses the same tactics and rhetoric they are so adept at in condemning others. The NP spares no effort in equating an Israeli boycott with anti-semitism. What bullshit.
Do a search for United Church on the National Post website. Here are some headline picks, in chronological order.
This is anti-christian. This is bigoted. This is racist. This is disgusting journalism.
The UCC could sue for libel and ask for a retraction/apology on certain misrepresentations made. We all know the NP won't apologize, so it is only reasonable that the UCC also call upon its members to consider a boycott the National Post and any business that advertises in the National Post (or Canwest). Tell a friend, and so on and so on.
And keeping working on the Israeli boycott thing. It's a good thing. It will work. It has before.
The Facebook poster has clarified:
I'm hoping we can move on. The problem with this, as with other controversies, as that people tend to only remember the first, sensationalized part rather than the rational outcome (which was that the CJC ultimately commended the Church's actions, despite their initial concerns).
The supporting materials were anti-Semiotic though the Hitlerite analogy was way excessive. The CJC showed greater care. I do not recall a condemnation of the entire Church but I may be wrong.
Even rabble's not safe from the lobby. Abraham know's how they'll get ther message out in the MSM liike the left does.
Sorry Jaku, I didn't hear you "immediately denounce" the Simon Wiesenthal Center. You said "the Hitlerite analogy is way excessive". Sounds more like a friendly scolding to me.
Why don't you "immediately denounce" them - here's a suggestion:
"By daring to compare the UCC's wideranging debate to Hitler's propagandists of the 1930s, the Wiesenthal Center showed its true colours - denigrating and exploiting the Holocaust for its own base political purposes. They are no longer worthy to bear the name of Wiesenthal."
Or, now that you know what they actually said, I suppose your grandstanding is over - time to close ranks in support of Israel, right?
Has anyone ever documented the number of times Unionist attacks people as opposed to issues? It really is an infantile way to debate.
As or the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, I unreservedly condemn its use of Hitlerite comparisions. I far prefer targeting issues for what they are and in this case the supporting documents are antisemitic.
Has anyone ever documented the number of times Unionist attacks people as opposed to issues? It really is an infantile way to debate.
I accused you of "grandstanding" when you said you would "immediately denounce" the CJC if it had used this Hitlerite analogy. This wasn't an "attack" - except in the sense that when anyone criticizes Israel, arch-Zionists immediately scream and yelp that Jews have been "attacked".
But thanks, anyway, for condemning the Wiesenthal Center for its Hitlerite analogy - even though you continue in the same sentence to re-launch a grotesque slur of "anti-Semitism" against some irrelevant comment in a "supporting document". You never seem to lose sight of the main goal, which is to vilify any criticism of Israel, and especially any collective action aimed at bringing that pariah state to heel.
Thankfully this was just the idea of a few extremists. Most of the United Church, like most Canadians, want an even-handed approach and a two-state solution - and boycotts and sanctions do nothing to help Palestinians or Israelis.
... attacks people as opposed to issues? It really is an infantile way to debate.
What a strange thing for a Zionist to say ... a self-hating Zionist?
Oh, an everyday Zionist. How nice. Actually, it is the extremists and racists who oppose sanctions. Look, we can all debate like Zionists! Try it again: Anti-semites and murderers oppose sanctions against Israel. This could be fun.
You don't have to be a "Zionist" to oppose a boycott of Israel.
I read the support documents and honestly did find them to be anti-Semitic. And while I oppose the concept of a boycott I do not necessarily believe those who advocate it should be labeled anti-Semitic.
I read the support documents and honestly did find them to be anti-Semitic. And while I oppose the concept of a boycott I do not necessarily believe those who advocate it should be labeled anti-Semitic.
How incredibly broad-minded of you.
I read the support documents and honestly did find them to be anti-Semitic.
Any examples?
I read the support documents and honestly did find them to be anti-Semitic.
Any examples?
Good Lord, LTJ. Prophit used the word "honestly". Are you now questioning Prophit's honesty? You're asking for examples?
What a pity babble isn't mature enough to have an anti-colonial/anti-imperialist bias. It would save so much time. [/end whine]
You don't have to be a "Zionist" to oppose a boycott of Israel.
Nope, but the smear --extremists-- sure is charateristic of Zionism. How far from extremist to terrorist?
What a pity babble isn't mature enough to have an anti-colonial/anti-imperialist bias. It would save so much time. [/end whine]
What other supremacist ideology gets such a pass? In fact, how does babble legitimze the boycott movement when it remains open to the proponents of the Israeli Aparthied state?
Geeze Louise, even those who partially agree with you are held out to ridicule.
See, now that's a Zionist response. Right away with the smear. Way to go! A self-hating Zionist no more.
He's not just a self-loving Zionist (or should I say Onanist?), he's positively pro-semiotic!
The supporting materials were anti-Semiotic though the Hitlerite analogy was way excessive.
:D
If the Semiotics don't get you, the ApartHeil will!
:D
Psst. That was a spelling flame.
I am now begtinning to understand why the Jewish community reacts so strongly to some anti-Zionists. Using loaded terms such as "Supremacists" is unhelpful given that most Jews are Zionists. You will never go past your own little circle if you continue to employ this type of strategy.
I am now begtinning to understand why the Jewish community reacts so strongly to some anti-Zionists.
"The Jewish community" = Bernie Farber, Frank Dimant, and the JDL.
Another "big lie" slid in. "Most Jews are Zionists". What a laughable and insidious statement. If they were, they would get the hell out of Canada and go to the "Homeland". Instead, there has always been a huge net inflow of Israelis into Canada vs. the other way around. Most Jews don't want to be anywhere near the "Homeland", and they vote with their feet.
On the contrary, the recognition of Israeli crimes is growing daily - and the Zionists' second-biggest nightmare is the growing number of outspoken Jews condemning Israeli crimes, joining the BDS movement, etc.
Unionist these are my views. I reject you calling me a liar simply for stating my views. You may disagree but to call fellow babblers "liars" is unseemly.
I honestly believe that most Jews in this country fully support the state of Israel. Not all believe israel is always faultless and many are critical of Israeli government policies but they remain financial and moral supporters.
You write from your view and you are welcome to it. I would never call you a liar. I do believe you are wrong.
He didn't call you a liar, he said you slipped in a 'big lie'; the one about most jews being zionist. I imagine there are different forms and degrees of Zionism, but the form practised by the current government in Israel is aparthied. I don't believe for a moment 'most' jews around the world fully embrace what Israel is doing.
So it qualifies as a BIG LIE, (imho). Zionism has nothing to do with a boycott of Israel, it's the politics of Israel that fuels the force behind the boycott.
He didn't call you a liar, he said you slipped in a 'big lie'; the one about most jews being zionist.
Thank you, Diogenes - of course you're correct, but isn't it interesting how Gus slips in another diversion about being called a "liar", which he never was.
You are absolutely correct. Not even "most" Jews in Israel fully embrace those actions. And, as I said, many who consider themselves as Zionists not only mobilize against Israel's aggressive and apartheid policies, but even go to jail for their actions - such as the refuseniks, the shministim, etc. Source.
Exactly - it's the biggest lie of all endangering the Jewish people, both in Israel and abroad - fuelling anti-semitism, isolationism, and militating against solidarity of the Jews with the cause of oppressed people everywhere.
Gus, Unionist was merely being polite.
The alternative to saying you are confused and mistaken (taken in by the BIG LIE) is to accuse you of supporting fascism and racism.
Yes you folks are really clever...a horse by any other name..."I" slipped in "the Big Lie" (either then Im stupid or deceitful)...sure its not me
And I never claimed that in order to be a Zionists one must support the present govenment (who is pushing the "big lie" now?)...my view is that most Jews support the Jewish state. I was pretty clear to write that doing so does not mean they support all israeli government policy.
I'm rather certain you're not stupid, Gus. Which leaves the 'deceitful' thing wide-open for sure....
And you're being intentionally disengunous.
I was pretty clear to write that doing so does not mean they support all israeli government policy.
Ah, I see. Who was the Gus Williams that said this then:
... and then "clarified" by saying this:
And then feeding into some of our anti-semitic enemies' favourite libels by concocting this fable:
[emphasis added]
I honestly believe that most Jews in this country fully support the state of Israel. Not all believe israel is always faultless and many are critical of Israeli government policies but they remain financial and moral supporters.
Are your honest beliefs any different than your dishpnest beliefs? If your beliefs completely contradict the facts, which are they, honest or dishonest?
You do bring up an interesting point about financial support. A friend has expressed his discomfort at his temple's financial support (to which he has contributed) of Israeli institutions. These funds are dedicated to good works (parks, schools, etc.), but he recognises that they simply free up Israeli government funds for military purposes. However, he is loathe to challenge this funding openly, because of the blowback he expects from the leadership, and the embarrassment it would cause his family. In discussions with family and friends, he regularly receives sympathy for his concerns, yet no one has challenged temple policy. How can such discussions become open and common?
Yep.
I believe many Canadian Jews support Israel. For many different reasons, many sympathetic. I think many are probably conflicted in their support of Israel and their revulsion of racist Israeli policies and brutal violence, But that is a real stretch to the Big Lie that most Canadian Jews are Zionists - adherents to a racist, supremacist ideology.
Now Gus says, "loaded terms such as "Supremacists" is unhelpful". Well, the truth is always unhelpful to the supporters of racist and supremacist ideologies. But at the heart of Zionist ideology is the Jewish state and ethnic superiority supported through policy and law.
Herzl believed in ethnic superiority? Who knew?
I would say Herzl knew ...
Herzl wrote his book "Der Judenstaat" (The State of the Jews) in which he wrote, inter alia, that the Jews and their state will constitute "a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism", and again regarding the local population, "We shall endeavour to encourage the poverty-stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly. Let (the landowners) sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them."
A Basic History of Zionism and its Relation to Judaism
A rampart of Europe, home of the holocaust. One man's cilvilization is another's barbarians, I guess. But, yes, Zionism was born as and remains a supremacist ideology.
And Victor Klemperer wrote in I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi years (1933-1945), that the movement of some Jews from Germany to Israel was unfair to the Palestinian people, whose land they were taking up. Rather like the action of Europeans on the North American Indian, observed his wife, Eva.
(Obviously, it has always been questioned by some, for the same reason that we can challenge it today. But, of course, not many had the money outside to do that, by 1934).
Have you guys seen that show called "Obssessed"... you guys should be on it.
I would say Herzl knew ...
Herzl wrote his book "Der Judenstaat" (The State of the Jews) in which he wrote, inter alia, that the Jews and their state will constitute "a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism", and again regarding the local population, "We shall endeavour to encourage the poverty-stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly. Let (the landowners) sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them."
A Basic History of Zionism and its Relation to Judaism
A rampart of Europe, home of the holocaust. One man's cilvilization is another's barbarians, I guess. But, yes, Zionism was born as and remains a supremacist ideology.
Many of today's problems derive from the fact that the landowning class constituted only a tiny fraction of the population. Most were tenant farmers - who were left with nowhere to go. Chomsky documents this quite well.
Herzl believed in ethnic superiority? Who knew?
You know what, Caissa - you can seek deals with the British empire to send white European Jews to one of their colonies (Herzl was prepared to accept Uganda, in fact), without giving a second thought to whether there's an indigenous population or what might happen to them. Does that mean you "believe in ethnic superiority"? Maybe, maybe not. Does that mean you practise it? You tell me.
Have you guys seen that show called "Obssessed"... you guys should be on it.
Have you seen that program called "SSpellllcheckkker"... you should buy it. Then you should eat it.
It might also be helpful to place Herzl in historical context, Unionist.
Presentist bias is rampant in moost historical periods.
It might also be helpful to place Herzl in historical context, Unionist.
Presentist bias is rampant in moost historical periods.
I would be happy to do so, Caissa, if present-day Zionists were more sensitive to the human rights of the Palestinian people than those of Herzl's time were. But tell me what has changed. The spiritual and political continuity is frightening. In my view, that tells us something about the toxic nature of Zionism for the Jewish people, even when it is combined with some grudging respect for the rights of others.
Anyway, you're the one who questioned the notion of Herzl believing in ethnic superiority. Why would you even question it, when in those days, finding a European who considered Africans and Asians to be their equal was virtually impossible?
Deleted
touche, Unionist.
Long thread, and Starcrapper is gone.