Tell MEC to Stop Supporting Israeli Apartheid!

I haven't responded because I believe that most of the anti-boycott posters are being disingenuous. It is impossible to debate with someone who makes a caricature of your post based on an invented sentiment balooned to gross hyperbole. It is also impossible to debate with someone who has no interest in discussing the merits of a boycott and instead jumps through Sophist hoops to defend Israel's illegal and criminal occupation of Gaza. I, and others against this criminal act, believe it to be apartheid, but that is a debate for another thread.

Here: a boycott is an activist strategy to place economic pressure on a nation to get that nation or its citizens to change a distateful policy. It is a statement and a tactic. It is not a way of life. It is not a creed meant to make the particpants more morally pure. It is an organized action tailored to produce the desirable result. Therefore, diversionary questions like 'what about this criminal country or that complicit product' are moot and wrongheaded. MEC is a self-defined progressive corporation which makes its membership and board ripe for actioning this particular boycott. Hence the motion put to vote and the attempts by a certain faction of the membership to educate and pressure the rest of the membership. Clearly, the action made the Director of Ethical Sourcing reconsider what 'ethical sourcing' means to MEC (not to Coca-Cola, not to Kellog's: to MEC. Do not dignify these sleight of hands by third-rate tricksters with responses). For the time being, unfortunately, Harvey Chan drew an unjust and incompletre conclusion (do ethics stop at what MEC chooses to define as labour?). But, as LT says, la lutte continue.

Capitalism co-opts everything it touches, and makes us all complicit and culpable in its crimes. Hence complete extraction is impossible. Some choose to use this observation to ridicule any attempt to change this compromising structure, and some choose to ignore honest historical and social analysis of capitalism altogether. That's fine, but this problem and contradiction is not at issue here. The borders to the boycott are clearly drawn: here is what we do not like, here are symbolic and economic participants in what we do not like and here are the people with the influence to change it. Here is one way in which we link the three together to get what we, the people, want.

In short, I reiterate my original salvo to trolls SSC and Snert, with honorary inclusion Ghislaine: Get bent.

Ghislaine wrote:

to Snert and SSC's club? Cool! I did not know they had a club, but what do you say guys (gals?) will you have me?

We're meeting with the Elders of Zion tonight in our secret lair to come up with our latest strategy to control the banks and the media.

Uh, Catchfire, were you HACKED yesterday or something?  Because as I recall, it was actually YOUR post that I believed made a lot of sense:

Quote:

But can't you boycott the Israeli products in the same way you boycott Israeli products in a supermarket without boycotting the supermarket itself? Isn't that how the boycott has been organized so far?

 But now you don't seem to support your own suggestion. Someone didn't shame you, did they?

Ghislaine:  welcome aboard!  There are no dues, there's no charter, and our only dogma is "No Dogmas Allowed".