Author
|
Topic: CUPE support for Israel boycott is wrong
|
Slider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14464
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:03 AM
CUPE is to be commended for its fine work in exposing the provocateurs at the SPP meeting in Montebello PQ. However...CUPE is also an organization that calls for a boycott of Israel. This is unacceptable. CUPE should concern itself with domestic issues, like the SPP. It did good work on that file. In short, CUPE is wrong to call for a boycott of Israel, but they are right to expose APs at peaceful gatherings in Canada. [ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Slider ]
From: Home | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:09 AM
You are mistaken. CUPE has never called for a boycott of Israel.Furthermore, when CUPE Ontario calls for a boycott of Israel, it is very much a domestic issue. They are urging Canadians not to do business with a regime that violates international law and human rights by occupying others' lands, waging aggressive incursions, treating Palestinians as second-class citizens similar to the apartheid system in S. Africa, besides other offences. It is the Canadian government that should concern itself with domestic issues - including defence of the sovereignty of the Canadian people over their resources, labour and freedoms (not planting flags!), and stop interfering in the internal affairs of other peoples (such as in Afghanistan and Haiti).
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14464
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:12 AM
Beg to differ.Check out this link to the CUPE website. CUPE Ontario did call for a boycott of Israel, and CUPE National refused to disavow it. The only valid conclusion is that CUPE National tacitly approves of CUPE Ontario's boycott call, which is wrong. CUPE
From: Home | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Slider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14464
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess: What a fruit cake.
Yes, that Unionist guy is quite the fruitcake.
From: Home | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:19 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Okay, is this thread about CUPE and the SPP or CUPE and its stand on Israel? Because if it's the latter, then this thread should be renamed and moved to the international issues forum. If it's the former, then there's already a thread going on the SPP agent provocateur thing.
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is about Cuba. I'm just waiting for someone to step up and mention it. ...awe crap...
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14464
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:20 AM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: CUPE National should not have equivocated on the issue. They should have clearly come out in support of the boycott.
Nah, they should limit themselves to Canadian issues. Let Amnesty International or Greenpeace handle international boycotts. BTW, I'm not interested in debating the pros/cons of Israel's actions. That's better off in another thread. My point is that provincial or national labour organizations should concern themselves with their respective issues. That's what the union dues are supposed to be used for. If you want union dues spent on International concerns, fine, just make sure it's clearly understood by the rank and file that some of their money will not be used to directly benefit the membership.
From: Home | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14464
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:26 AM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Actually I have a lot of respect for him. The guy who started this thread however was starting to make an impression and then, well, he sorta short circuited ...
I object to that statement about me. Apologize!!
From: Home | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:29 AM
In response to the new title. You are absolutely wrong.CUPE Ontario, Cupe Canada, or Cupe of the East side of West Guillumbery all have a stake in international situations. This is due to something called 'Globalization', you may have heard of it before. We are no longer able to live in a bubble of our own locations, and our actions effect others, theirs effects us, therefore, we have a right to point out when we don't like what they're doing.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:30 AM
quote: Originally posted by Slider:
I object to that statement about me. Apologize!!
interesting, you can dish out vitriol and sludge and personal attacks, but you can't take a low key ribbing.
From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:31 AM
Fortunately the unions don't agree with your narrow view of how to protect workers in this country. The corporate masters would love for the left to stick to local issues while they engage in global domination. HEU OFl Caucus Posties speak outPSAC Nurses CEP
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:38 AM
quote: Originally posted by quelar:
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is about Cuba. I'm just waiting for someone to step up and mention it. ...awe crap...
CUBA??! Crap. I was getting set to defend Stalin or something.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Slider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14464
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:39 AM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: The corporate masters would love for the left to stick to local issues while they engage in global domination.
Well, isn't that the purpose of a union, to look after the direct interests of its members. There are all sorts of international organizations pressing the issue of Israel, or whatever. Local or National unions could maybe trust that those organizations can deal with those situations effectively, and thus focus their energies on improving safety or benefits, things that will have an immediate impact on Canadian workers.
From: Home | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535
|
posted 22 August 2007 11:51 AM
quote: Originally posted by Slider:
Well, isn't that the purpose of a union, to look after the direct interests of its members. There are all sorts of international organizations pressing the issue of Israel, or whatever. Local or National unions could maybe trust that those organizations can deal with those situations effectively, and thus focus their energies on improving safety or benefits, things that will have an immediate impact on Canadian workers.
I don't think unions and their members see local and global as exclusive.
For example, unions regularly address local concerns in each of their locals, yet will comment about how they feel about the fate of industrial workers in China because they are all brothers and sisters. The Alberta Teacher Assoc in Alberta educates it's members about working and classroom conditions, Diversity, Equity and Human Rights, and global citizenship e.g. UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network [ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 22 August 2007 12:20 PM
The whole premise here doesn't have a leg to stand on. International solidarity, or internationalism, is ABC for working people, and it doesn't really matter what borders it crosses. It's universal.The modus operandi of global capitalism is to seek out the lowest wages, the worst environmental standards, the most horrific lack of human rights. Worse conditions for working people in one country affect workers in other countries. An army of impoverished workers in one country helps to drive down the wages of workers in a neighbouring country - especially if the impoverished workers emigrate under conditions where they do not have the right to belong to a union (as in Canada, until recently, for "guest" workers, and in the USA) or protect their rights. CUPE Ontario has been honoured by the working people of South Africa, through their labour central body COSATU, with the stirring words of Willie Mashida. They bear repeating: quote:
The President Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario June 6, 2006Brother Sid Ryan On behalf over 1,2 million South African workers organized under the banner of COSATU I greet you in the name of worker internationalism. It is this solidarity, since the formation of the very first union and across space and time, often in the face of harsh repression, that provided vital moral succour and allowed workers to strengthen their resolve against oppression and exploitation. In this spirit and with great pride, I congratulate CUPE Ontario for their historic resolution on May 27th in support of the Palestinian people -- those living under occupation and those millions of Palestinian refugees living in the Diaspora. We fully support your resolution. ... Those supporting the ideology of Zionism and the pro-Israeli lobby will muster their substantial resources against you. Despite these pressures, we ask you not to doubt for a single moment the correctness of your just stand. We salute the courage and vision of CUPE Ontario’s leadership and members in unanimously passing resolution 50. Your unwavering resolve inspires us, we who lived through decades of apartheid oppression, as it will undoubtedly inspire and endear you to millions of Palestinian and other freedom loving people throughout the world. In Solidarity Willie Madisha President Congress of South African Trade Unions.
CUPE Ontario honours all Canadians by their brave stand. And COSATU says ... We salute you! What could be clearer?
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535
|
posted 22 August 2007 12:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: International solidarity, or internationalism, is ABC for working people, and it doesn't really matter what borders it crosses. It's universal.
exactly
From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 22 August 2007 12:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Slider:
Yes, that Unionist guy is quite the fruitcake.
Retract that now. Please.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Slider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14464
|
posted 22 August 2007 12:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
Retract that now. Please.
Uh, yeah, I'll start re-typing it any moment now. Check back every few minutes to see if you agree with it.
From: Home | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226
|
posted 22 August 2007 12:54 PM
I'm sorry that your double standards don't allow you to see how stupid you areI'm sorry that you're so ugly that your ears stick out so that they don't have to be near you I'm sorry that the doctor dropped you at birth I'm sorry that the last time you farted your IQ dropped 10 points
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 22 August 2007 01:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Slider:
Well, isn't that the purpose of a union, to look after the direct interests of its members.
No, the purpose of unions is to look after the interests of the working class as a whole. Those interests include social justice, human rights, international solidarity, fighting for peace against war and aggression. They include opposing discrimination of all kinds which are used by employers to divide workers. They include also fighting for progressive legislation to give broader effect to the struggle that unions wage in defence of their members. Saying that the purpose of unions is to look after the "direct interests" of their members, is to make a rather partisan philosophical and ideological statement as to where the interests of workers start and finish. Employers would like unions to die, disappear altogether. If they can't kill them, they want to confine their scope of activity to the narrowest and most manageable possible scope - what is traditionally known as "business unionism" - shorthand for a union movement which can never fundamentally challenge the stranglehold which the wealthy and powerful have over all facets of the economy and society. I, and every trade unionist I know, contemptuously rejects the attempts of the powerful to tell us what we can talk about, where we can intervene. We differ, and debate, all the time about what position to take on domestic and world affairs. Where we never differ any more, however, is on our duty to the working class to take some position on the matters that concern all of humanity. [ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227
|
posted 22 August 2007 01:38 PM
Give it a break! The thrust and response of middle east politics has no place here. If the original poster wants to quibble ("AGAIN") with a union policy on International matters, then take it to the proper place.To be honest, NO ONE I care about or work with cares about the question. STOP ALL the BS. Stop killing, no matter what your race or religion. Just end this BS.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535
|
posted 22 August 2007 02:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
No, the purpose of unions is to look after the interests of the working class as a ....some position on the matters that concern all of humanity.
well stated
From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457
|
posted 22 August 2007 08:52 PM
Originally posted by kropotkin1951 quote:
CUPE National should not have equivocated on the issue. They should have clearly come out in support of the boycott.
kropotkin1951:B'nai Brith Canada and I, will be ready to respond to CUPE National, if CUPE National supports the boycott of Israel. [73], [15] and [65] Romard v. CUPE [161], [162], [163] and [168] McPhee v. CUPE [ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]
From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901
|
posted 22 August 2007 09:49 PM
quote: Originally posted by Slider: Beg to differ.Check out this link to the CUPE website. CUPE Ontario did call for a boycott of Israel, and CUPE National refused to disavow it. The only valid conclusion is that CUPE National tacitly approves of CUPE Ontario's boycott call, which is wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/34z3h9 quote:
The tight race for St. Paul's ward turned nasty yesterday, as a rival attacked incumbent councillor Joe Mihevc for accepting CUPE Ontario's endorsement.Challenger John Adams is distributing an open letter to ward residents highlighting the union's vote last May encouraging "the divestment and sanctions against Israel until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination." It noted that "Mr. Mihevc has chosen to accept the endorsement of CUPE Ontario."
Welcome to rabble, John. [ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ] [ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 23 August 2007 10:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer: Originally posted by kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951:B'nai Brith Canada and I, will be ready to respond to CUPE National, if CUPE National supports the boycott of Israel. [73], [15] and [65] Romard v. CUPE [161], [162], [163] and [168] McPhee v. CUPE [ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]
?????????????WTF do those cases have to do with the topic? I guess maybe your point is that if CUPE does something you don't like you will sue them. So what!! Who funds you for these lawsuits?
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457
|
posted 23 August 2007 11:21 AM
Originally posted by kropotkin1951 quote:
????????????? WTF do those cases have to do with the topic? I guess maybe your point is that if CUPE does something you don't like you will sue them.
kropotkin1951:Most of my complaints are about what CUPE hasn't done. [ 23 August 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]
From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 23 August 2007 11:57 AM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
WTF do those cases have to do with the topic?
Nothing at all - of course. The case which is actually relevant here is Lavigne v. OPSEU, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1991. Here is a link to the full decision. This is from a short resume by Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell: quote: Lavigne was a teacher at a community college who was required to pay dues to OPSEU under a mandatory check-off clause, which was permitted under section 53 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act. Lavigne objected to some of the expenditures made by the union, such as contributions to the NDP and to disarmament campaigns, and challenged the mandatory check-off (also known as the Rand formula) under section 2(d) of the Charter. [...]Three judges held that Rand formula violated section 2(d) of the Charter. However, they held that the infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter because the state objective in compelling payment of union dues which can be used to assist causes unrelated to collective bargaining are to enable unions to participate in the broader political, economic and social debates in society and to contribute to democracy in the workplace. These objectives were rationally connected to the requirement that all union members pay dues. An optin-out formula could seriously undermine the union's financial base and spirit of solidarity so important to the underpinnings of unionism. Four judges held that there had been no violation of section 2(d), and that, in any event, any violation would be saved under section 1 of the Charter.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961
|
posted 26 August 2007 10:09 AM
This is not an issue of black and white. There are always two sides and the union movement has always looked for balance and fairness. The Middle East should be no exception.A friend sent this interesting article to me written by Judah Pearl father of the murdered Daniel Pearl. Professor pearl is known as a progressive in Israel often being a critical voice to government policy that impacts badly on Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. He has been lauded by many as a peacemaker and has been acros North America with Muslim leaders in public dialogue. It is worth a read. The Right to feel offended
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 26 August 2007 04:59 PM
Haaretz is a daily Israeli newspaper, founded in 1919, published in Hebrew with a full English translation, and sold in Israel together with the International Herald Tribune. It is described as follows: quote: Compared to other mass circulation papers printed in Israel, especially Maariv and Yedioth Ahronoth, Haaretz is geared to more sophisticated readers. [...] Its editorial pages are considered more influential among government leaders.[1] Apart from the news, Haaretz publishes feature articles on social and environmental issues, as well as book reviews, investigative reporting and political commentary.
It is Zionist and pro-private enterprise in its leanings. On July 20, 2007, it featured an editorial entitled, "A racist Jewish state": quote: Every day the Knesset has the option of passing laws that will advance Israel as a democratic Jewish state or turn it into a racist Jewish state. There is a very thin line between the two. This week, the line was crossed. If the Knesset legal counselor did not consider the bill entitled "the Jewish National Fund Law" as sufficiently racist to keep it off the agenda, it is hard to imagine what legislation she will consider racist.In 1995 the Supreme Court rescued the state from callously discriminating against its Arab citizens through the Ka'adan case, which prohibited the Israel Lands Administration from discriminating against non-Jews by leasing land through the Jewish Agency. Since then the attorney general has stated that such discrimination is unacceptable - also when it is carried out through the Jewish National Fund. The MKs were unable to accept this egalitarian ruling, and on Wednesday a large majority of 65 voted in favor of a preliminary reading permitting such discrimination. [...] The Ka'adan case in the Supreme Court failed to bring about change. The power to discriminate was passed on to communities' acceptance committees that reject candidates by reverting to the clause of "being ill-suited to the community." If it was not for the Supreme Court's ruling in the Ka'adan case, it would have been possible also to reject non-Jewish candidates from Russia. The Ka'adan ruling was exceptional in setting red lines, allowing a broad range for change, establishing norms and preventing the debasement of the rule book. It turns out that the Supreme Court is not omnipotent. In an instant, a racist Knesset can overturn its rulings.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CUPE_Reformer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7457
|
posted 26 August 2007 08:15 PM
Originally posted by unionist quote:
I, and every trade unionist I know, contemptuously rejects the attempts of the powerful to tell us what we can talk about,
unionist:Should the following limit the debate? "RULES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS 2. No question of religious character shall be discussed." CUPE Ontario Constitution 2007 (PDF file) [ 26 August 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]
From: Real Solidarity | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 28 August 2007 07:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer: Should the following limit the debate?"RULES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS 2. No question of religious character shall be discussed."
I've already answered this question. Workers long ago recognized how religion is used to divide them and have them fight each other over nonsense instead of uniting with their common interests in mind. That's why many unions - including mine - decades ago self-imposed this rule. Think of it like, "No alcohol shall be consumed during meetings."
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 28 August 2007 07:41 PM
If the occupation and Palistinian refugee problem are not resolved properly, there will be war. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews will die. Any Zionist worth his salt would care more about bringing about a just peace(and garaunteeing the safety of Isreal's Jewish community in the process) then he would about maintaining this bloated fiction about Isreal being a "light unto nations" you don't Ohara, to you Israel's image is more important then it substance.Any person who truly cares about a continued Jewish presence in Palistine should support a boycott of isreali goods. [ 28 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553
|
posted 30 August 2007 06:02 AM
What utter nonsense. The sad truth is that a Jewish presence in what is now Israel was NOT tolerated by non-Jews in the Region. Indeed the Mufti of Jerusalem sided with Hitler as you may recall and King Farouk, Gamel Abdul Nasser, Sadam Hussein and other Arab leaders were not exactly tolerant of Jews in Israel. It was only with the establishment of a Jewish state were Jews given a place to live in their state without fear of being murdered.Now today that does not justify past Isareli policy that harms Palestinians and many progressive Jews like myself want a just end to the occupation. But first comes honesty.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020
|
posted 30 August 2007 06:35 AM
quote: Originally posted by Petsy: What utter nonsense. The sad truth is that a Jewish presence in what is now Israel was NOT tolerated by non-Jews in the Region. Indeed the Mufti of Jerusalem sided with Hitler as you may recall and King Farouk, Gamel Abdul Nasser, Sadam Hussein and other Arab leaders were not exactly tolerant of Jews in Israel. It was only with the establishment of a Jewish state were Jews given a place to live in their state without fear of being murdered.Now today that does not justify past Isareli policy that harms Palestinians and many progressive Jews like myself want a just end to the occupation. But first comes honesty.
Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. Mahatma Gandhi "the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute." Extracts from a letter signed by Albert Einstein and many other prominent Jews to The New York Times December 4, 1948 Jews in pre-Mandate Palestine were treated with notable tolerance by the Muslim rulers of the day, with freedom to practice their religion etc. I think I'll go with the Mahatma and Albert on this one, Petsy, rather than the patent untruths you're peddling here.
From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 30 August 2007 06:38 AM
quote: Originally posted by Petsy:
Now today that does not justify past Isareli policy that harms Palestinians and many progressive Jews like myself want a just end to the occupation. But first comes honesty.
What about PRESENT Israeli policy? If Israel really, truely was interested in stopping thhe violence and creating a peacful entity in the middle east, they would NOT be moving further and further into the palestinian territories. More Settlements is NOT the answer.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553
|
posted 30 August 2007 07:38 AM
quote: Originally posted by Merowe:
Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. Mahatma Gandhi "the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute." Extracts from a letter signed by Albert Einstein and many other prominent Jews to The New York Times December 4, 1948 Jews in pre-Mandate Palestine were treated with notable tolerance by the Muslim rulers of the day, with freedom to practice their religion etc. I think I'll go with the Mahatma and Albert on this one, Petsy, rather than the patent untruths you're peddling here.
Mahatma, if I didnt know better sounds almost racist to me...perhaps it was the time but give me a break!!!
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 30 August 2007 08:04 AM
Debunking the lies of Israeli apologists and why the boycott is the right thing to do:1. "Singling out" Israel: This is the "Why pick on Israel" when there are so many other good targets for a boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign? Firstly, a very important fact is routinely omitted by those opposing the BDS campaign: quote: The global campaign of BDS against Israel is a direct response to an urgent appeal signed in July 2005 by over 170 Palestinian worker, student, farmer, women, professional and refugee associations (2). This appeal was endorsed by every Palestinian trade union federation and is the broadest and most representative call for international solidarity ever made by Palestinian society.
In fact the disturbing and lengthy silence by North American trade unions on the decades of injustice against the Palestinian people is something that long ago should have come to an end. This is even more true for US trade unionists whose government finances these crimes with billions annually in financial, military and dipomatic support. Those that try to oppose one example of solidarity with another are actually demonstrating a hostility to the basic principles of solidarity and internationalism which can be summed up: an injury to one is an injury to all. This sort of hostility is a betrayal of fellow workers. 2. The "both sides" argument. quote: This argument of balance is willfully blind and deliberately obfuscating of the central political issues at hand. There is an underlying cause to the ongoing misery and suffering that affects peoples in the area – and it affects some people more than others: The destruction of the Palestinian homeland in 1948; the creation of an exclusivist state that closely resembles the apartheid state of South Africa; the continued occupation, since 1967, of Palestinian lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in violation of UN resolutions; and the current encirclement, siege and economic strangulation of Gaza; these are the root problems of the conflict. Israel (with U.S. and British support) is the key perpetrator of these violations and it is morally disingenuous to deploy arguments of ‘all sides equally guilty’. These violations of the Palestinian peoples and nation must be addressed if a genuine and just peace is to be achieved in the region. Avoiding these issues – and repeating vacuous calls that serve to equate the oppressed and their oppressors – really means standing on the side of those in power.
3. The negotiations myth. Trade unionists often hear this fraud that strikes, e.g. hurt everyone and therefore the two sides need to sit down and negotiate, etc. In fact, the most recent negotiations [Oslo 1993] have served to solidify the horrific occupation, increase illegal settlements, expand the Apartheid Wall, etc., etc.. In the David vs. Israeli Goliath struggle, the BDS campaign helps to level the playing field and increases the possibility of genuine negotiations down the road. Without pressure brought to bear, the Israelis will simply continue the ethnic cleansing, divide and rule, etc.. 4. Israeli and Palestinian unions. quote: The Histadrut (existing Israeli union movement) represents a colonial-type union formation that supports the ongoing domination of the Palestinian people. It has worked hand-in-hand with the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for decades, and is thus an integral part of the exploitation of Palestinian labour. The former Histadrut leader, Amir Peretz, moved straight on to Israeli Defence Minister and in that position presided over the horrendous bombardment of Lebanon in 2006. As part of Olmert’s government, he participated in the further extension of settlements in the West Bank and the building of the Apartheid Wall.
In summary then, quote: The purpose of boycott and divestment resolutions is to force the Israeli government to fulfill basic principles of human rights. Governments around the world have clearly failed to do so – and, in contrast, are instrumental to supporting Israel’s system of oppression. The BDS campaign message is direct: it simply says that we should have no part in supporting those who stand with and maintain Israeli apartheid; we refuse to participate with and strengthen those structures and demand that basic human rights are achieved for the Palestinian people.
The author points out that the boycott campaign is working. The Israeli government has set up a special committee to combat the boycott campaign. The British government has had to publicly respond to a motion of a trade union body. And, in Canada, the work done by CUPE Ontario has helped to educate many trade unionists and others who would otherwise never have gotten the facts from the corporate and slavishly pro-Israel private media in this country. New Palestinian solidarity groups have been formed and good things are happening. HOORAY FOR CUPE ONTARIO!! Here is the complete article by Labour for Palestine. [ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 30 August 2007 02:14 PM
Of course Israel is being singled out. So CUPE wants Israel to abide by international law? Fine. Me too.
But why a boycott against Israel, and not one against the United States, which also violates international law, or Cuba (likewise) or China (double likewise)? "Singled out" means SELECTIVELY acting against one group guilty of an offence, while FAILING to act against another, equally guilty group. Bel'tov, above, hyperbloviates about an injury to one being an injury to all, yet his postings on babble are among the most hypocritical of all posters, reflecting an inability to judge Communist-approved regimes by the same standard as he treats the US, Israel, and other Designated Enemy states.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 30 August 2007 06:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by ohara: I see so this has nothing to do with any real principles...a trade union calls for a boycott and off we go...no real studies no nuance black and white huh? Nevermind that other states do exactly the same if not worse but hey no one is calling for a boycott so let them eat cake!!! What a bunch of hypocrites!!
What the are you talking about!? There are plenty of studies, some by zionist peace organizations, which highlight exactly how awful the occupation is. Edited to remove profanity. [ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 30 August 2007 07:20 PM
quote: Well riddle me this, for you folk intent on singling out Israel for your approbation, is it not possible to boycott USA at the same time or China or UK or any of the others???
I noticed Jeff hasn't responded to my question. So, ohara, in what way is China an Apartheid state? What people, due to their race or religion, are afforded rights and privileges and even citizenship denied others for no other reason than they are not of a certain race or religion? Are the Chinese starving a people in a ghetto as Israel is to Palestinians in Gaza?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 30 August 2007 07:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by ohara: Yes, answer Jeff's well put question with another. Well riddle me this, for you folk intent on singling out Israel for your approbation, is it not possible to boycott USA at the same time or China or UK or any of the others???
If my union went on strike against Joe's Widget Factory, Joe would no doubt ask why we don't strike all the other capitalist exploiters at the same time. "Why go after poor me?" says Joe. "Are you saying all my competitors are humanitarian socialist types? What a bunch of hypocrites you are." Our answer: "It's all about timing. Joe, you're really bad news right now. All the workers are furious with you. We've tried bargaining but it has yielded nothing. The balance of power is favourable to us. You've been found guilty of a whole shitload of unfair labour practices. What can we say? We've taken on this battle because we think we can win it. So just start playing by the rules, stop being a pariah, sit down and negotiate, and life will be good. Then we'll go after the other bad guys." That's how I see it. On the other hand, we can all just take on all the enemies all at once and self-destruct. Not today, ohara!
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 31 August 2007 02:45 AM
quote: Originally posted by ohara: Yes, answer Jeff's well put question with another.
Guess you missed this, huh? quote: Palestinian trade union federations launched an international call for a boycott. That's why.
Most unions have international solidarity committees which support their brothers and sisters in international trade unions. Mine does; so does CUPE. So, Palestinian trade unionists have put out a call for a boycott, and CUPE responded. Chinese and American unions haven't put out an international call for other trade unions to boycott the US and China. That is the answer to your question. It was given to you above. I'm sure you'll now go on to bluster about people "answering the question" again and again, because that's all you seem to have in this argument. The fact is, the people who support CUPE's action do not believe that Israel and Palestine are equally responsible for what's happening there. People on both sides are getting hurt, but there is a clear oppressor and a clear victim, and the victims are getting hurt at a much higher rate than the oppressors are. If you don't like it that we see that, too bad. You can bluster all you want and try to get people here to repeat their arguments over and over again, but it's not going to change what's happening, and it's not going to make them change their minds.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 31 August 2007 05:53 AM
Ha'aretz editor calls Israel "apartheid state" at UN quote: The Arab affairs editor for the Israeli newsaper Ha'aretz, Danny Rubenstein, told participants at a United Nations conference in Brussels Thursday that Israel is an apartheid state."Today Israel is an apartheid state with different status for different communities," Rubenstein said, according to observers at the event, which is being held at the European Parliament. Observers also quoted Rubenstein, a prominent columnist and member of the newsaper's editorial board, as saying: "Hamas won the election of the international community and Israel cannot ignore that."
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126
|
posted 31 August 2007 06:32 AM
quote: So, ohara, in what way is China an Apartheid state? What people, due to their race or religion, are afforded rights and privileges and even citizenship denied others for no other reason than they are not of a certain race or religion?Are the Chinese starving a people in a ghetto as Israel is to Palestinians in Gaza?
Actually yes, the Chinese government systematically oppresses indigenous people, in fact they go on record as saying that "there are no indigenous people in China". And don't forget about Tibet. Like Israel, Apartheid South Africa and Canada, China steals land and resources from Indigenous people and then tries to pretend that they were never there or are "extinct". Although CUPE, OPSEU, CAW, CLC and others have done some very commendable solidarity work in the last few years with Indigenous peoples in Canada, they would never call for a boycott against Canadian made products. Even though the capital and resources that are used to make those products are stolen from Native land.
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553
|
posted 31 August 2007 06:42 AM
Very interesting Le Téléspectateur, so ohara's admonition of hypocricy rings even more true.[ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: Petsy ]
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 31 August 2007 06:42 AM
That's still just cleverly missing the point. The similar sort of thing in Canada would be if First Nation organizations called for a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign. And no such call exists or is forthcoming. Apparently, this needs to be re-posted: quote: The global campaign of BDS against Israel is a direct response to an urgent appeal signed in July 2005 by over 170 Palestinian worker, student, farmer, women, professional and refugee associations. This appeal was endorsed by every Palestinian trade union federation and is the broadest and most representative call for international solidarity ever made by Palestinian society.
Go ahead and misunderstand that. Source: Labour for Palestine [ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 31 August 2007 06:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur: Although CUPE, OPSEU, CAW, CLC and others have done some very commendable solidarity work in the last few years with Indigenous peoples in Canada, they would never call for a boycott against Canadian made products. Even though the capital and resources that are used to make those products are stolen from Native land.
Canadian unions call for boycotts all the time based on specific campaigns and specific egregious actions by countries, companies, governments, agencies - including those in Canada. We also lobby against (for example) use and export of asbestos, even though Canadian unionized workers are employed in its extraction. We campaign for Kyoto and the environment even though our jobs may be affected in the short term. Let me add that the charges of "hypocrisy" throughout this and similar discussions are really an innuendo (and often an explicit charge) that the boycotters are going after Israel because they hate Jews. Besides the fact that Israel is a travesty to the Jewish people, let me state very clearly that Jews do not get a pass on war, aggression, murder, torture, racism, apartheid, and occupation. I personally hold Jews to a far higher standard than anyone else in these matters, because we have suffered more than most, both in historical and in proportional terms, from these evils. Those that cry "anti-Semitism" in defending Israel's crimes are no friends of the Jewish people. ETA: Edited to delete a portion which was based on my misunderstanding of Téléspectateur's post. [ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126
|
posted 31 August 2007 07:06 AM
Actually Unionist, I was not trying to minimize the injustice of Israel. I was drawing attention to the fact that there are a number of apartheid states in the world, Canada being one.I have nothing but respect for unions in Canada and the way that they have worked in solidarity with Indigenous people is most admirable and has lead the way for other non-indigenous solidarity work. My point is that it's hard for unions to act against their self-interest. Even though the CAW may support climate change legislation they would never call for the elimination of the personal automobile, they can't. [ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 31 August 2007 07:15 AM
quote: Actually yes, the Chinese government systematically oppresses indigenous people, in fact they go on record as saying that "there are no indigenous people in China". And don't forget about Tibet.
What a joke. The Tibetans in China may have their land occupied, as do Iraqis, and they may be unhappy with the situation. But, they have full rights and citizenship as Chinese. Do you see the difference? Even if a Palestinian in the West Bank was to say, "I am quite happy with the occupation and I just want to be Israeli and live as do Israelis," he could not. Because citizenship, rights, and privileges are extended to Jews only. Do you understand that? Can it be made simpler? In South Africa, blacks were denied full citizenship only because they were black. They could never be white. Palestinians are denied citizenship and rights only because they are not Jewish. Does this make sense to you? It is a race based state. China is not. Can you grasp that at all?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 31 August 2007 07:27 AM
This has been going on for years too. The apologists have come up with falsehoods, lies, obfuscations and distractions to avoid looking at the basic fundamental fact that Israel is treating the Palestinians like second class citizens.That's a simple direct provable fact. Yes, there are other places in the world (here at home with native peoples for instance) that treat their citizens like second class, and we absolutely MUST address this, but that does NOT mean we should turn a blind eye and ignore what's happening elsewhere. It's hypocritical when all we hear from Israeli's is 'Never again' when it's happening again because of their actions.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 31 August 2007 07:34 AM
The peace movement that flourished in Israel and gave rise to Oslo has been in the doldrums for years.One of the most encouraging developments in my view is that mainstream Israeli commentators have started to speak out openly and call Israeli policy by its true ugly name (I've already posted these before): A racist Jewish state Ha'aretz editor calls Israel apartheid state Combined with the awakening global movement, these developments show signs that the struggle of democratic people in Israel and the occupied territories, of all religions and ethnicities, will have an important and powerful ally. [ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126
|
posted 31 August 2007 07:53 AM
quote: In South Africa, blacks were denied full citizenship only because they were black. They could never be white.Palestinians are denied citizenship and rights only because they are not Jewish. Does this make sense to you? It is a race based state. China is not. Can you grasp that at all?
I think that you are mistaken. Canada and China are also "race-based states". Indigenous people under both regimes are not only denied citizenship and rights as defined by the colonial state, they are also attacked when they exercise their responsibilities and rights as nations. And just so we are clear... I support the boycott, I don't support Israel, I am not anti-Semitic, I support organized labour, I don't support Canada, I am not anti-Anglo/Franco-European-Christian, I don't support China, I am not anti-Han
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 31 August 2007 08:03 AM
quote: I think that you are mistaken. Canada and China are also "race-based states". Indigenous people under both regimes are not only denied citizenship and rights as defined by the colonial state, they are also attacked when they exercise their responsibilities and rights as nations.
I don't disagree with that. But again, there remains a fundamental difference where in law, indigenous peoples in both countries have full rights as citizens. In practise, that may not be true. But in law, it is.In Israel, Palestinians, by law and practise, do not have full rights as citizens and if they are in the West Bank and Gaza, have no rights whatsoever. Again, that is a fundamental difference.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 31 August 2007 08:12 AM
It is beyond peradventure that Israel treats many of its citizens as second class; and that is something which calls for denunciation. It is also beyond peradventure that many other states treat some persons as second class. As someone mentioned above, Canada comes within that category, as does India, China, Australia, Russia, etc. There are other countries which treat everyone except the ruling Communist Party as second class citizens: for example, Cuba. As long as the boycott is directed ONLY at Israel, it is hypocritical; and that is so without even beginning to address the myriad injustices which Arab regimes visit upon their subjects. A truly progressive policy would target Israel, but would also be equally interventionist with respect to those regimes. Solzhenitsyn once wrote about his experience in Soviet prison camps that he was always being pestered by Trotskyites, who wanted him to sign letters protesting the arrest of this or that Trotskyite member. He used to sign them until he asked THEM to sign one of HIS petitions, and they wouldn't. It wasn't the policy of their sect to support Christians wrongly arrested, or "bourgeois". That's what's going on here. No one is a Trotskite, of course, but it's an entirely one-sided campaign which is in no way even-handed.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 31 August 2007 08:38 AM
quote: Well then Jeff. It shouldn't be that hard to point out the calls for a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign by the respective trade union and civil society organizations in the countries you've mentioned.
What crap. There are no independent trade unions in Cuba, and their are no independent trade unions in China. There are no independent trade unions in Iran, either. The fact that there are Palestinian trade unions free to call for a boycott says something FAVOURABLE about Israel. The logic of your comment is this: "We haven't heard any protests out of North Korea lately; everything must be fine there."
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 31 August 2007 08:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by Petsy: And a continuation of Canada's aprtheid like policies against the Native community.
Again, obfuscation and distraction. We all agree, we should do something here as well. But this is telling me that you don't care at all for the people of Palestine and think it's ok what's happening to them. I really didn't think people here were promoters of state sponsored terror, but I guess I'm wrong.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 31 August 2007 09:25 AM
So anyone who wants to argue that it's not important for Israel to be held accountable while we have terrible conditions for our Native Canadians please answer me this...When was the last time three Native Children were murdered for playing tag? Please, justify this for me. Go ahead.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Max Bialystock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13870
|
posted 31 August 2007 09:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: Ohara it is your view that has nothing to do with real principles except the principle that Israel is always right.
Do they tolerate your pro-apartheid views in your local NDP riding association, Ohara? [ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]
From: North York | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|