you raise a very uncomfortable point. Why do we single out some countries and not others to deal with? I have only half an answer.

We don't single out some countries - because it would be awkward or embarassing. For example, Canada has always depended heavily on one country as a defence and trading partner. Until WW1, that country was Britain; then our reliance shifted to the US. Any criticism of the US (besides being ignored) would very much upset Canadian business that depends on US trade, and upset our military and our defence industries,etc. So we don't do it. As well, many Canadians refuse to see it when the US government does something wrong, and so would not support any criticism.

For similar reasons, the west currently takes it easy on china.

Then there is also the problem, as you suggest, that so many countries are doing so many terrible things. You can't handle all of them. So you look for the one you can hope to have some effect on. That's why we zeroed in on South Africa - and it worked.

Then you will get those who jump all over Cuba. That's because Cuba is a successful revolt against US dominance - and that is a serious threat in American business circles like United Fruit.

And, of course, there are the antis - those who will criticize communist countries simply because they are anti-communist, and will ignore similar behaviour by capitalist countries, and you get a George Bush who will loudly declare a war on terrorist but,at the same time, protect a pro-American terrorist who blew up a Cuban civil airliner. And you will get the antis of all sorts, including the anti-semites, anti-capitalists, anti-Blacks, anti-leftists who will see wrong only when it done by those they hate.

It's hard to pick a target when you have so many countries doing evil. There are so many that any choice is going to run into criticism. I suppose the best one can do is to look for the one that poses a threat to us all and, as well, the one we can most hope to have some effect on.

But even at that, we rarely, if ever, get general agreement. I think South Africa was the closest we ever got to it.

graeme, interesting answers and for once, actually quite credible. However, you didn't answer the two questions in this paragraph. Care to tackle them now?

[... Israel illegal activities and as well on Canadians who are blind to Isarels activities and their unreasonable defense of Israelis actions.

[/quote]

Alex, I think this is part of your problem. You automatically assume that Israel's activities are "illegal", perhaps because that's what graeme says, or perhaps because you've seen so much written about these so-called illegal activities.

In most cases, Israel has been accussed, judged and found guilty by her enemies. She has been allowed no defence, or her arguments in defence are simply ignored by the likes of graeme, who believe that anything Israel says must be a lie.

Similarly, you are perhaps a little too ready to accept that Israel is guiltly of "illegal activities", without considering that perhaps the Palestinians, too, have been guilty of illegal activities. Think suicide bombings. Think snipers shooting babies in strollers. Think rockets deliberately aimed into civilian populations (even Human Rights Watch has finally had to admit that this last activity is a war crime).

In other words, Alex, while I appreciate your candour and your willingness to ask some tough questions about other countries and our treatment of them, I think you may be falling into the trap laid by the enemies of Israel. Perhaps you should give Israel the benefit of the doubt in some cases? Or at least commit to looking at things in a little more depth.

I have never claimed Israel's actions were the worst. Nor do I care. I have sat through too many, far too many, debates wasting time over Why we should criticize the US for killing over two million in Vietnam when we should be talking about Mao who killed more.

To argue over who is worse is to trivialize the whole thing and to guarantee no action at all. It reminds me of the mother whose son I caught cheating in an exam. It seems the son told her some others cheated, too, so unless I could catch and punish all of them I should not punish her son. Right. And unless we catch all armed bank robbers, we should not arrest any of them.

Oh, Palestinians have done other things wrong, too. Therefore, we should criticize Palestinians and not Israelis? Please.

As a matter of fact, I have see a good deal of criticism of Palestinians. And, in fact, the west supplies Israel with phosphorous shells and cluster bombs. It won't supply even sandwiches to Palestine.

Much of what Israel is doing is illegal. It's wrong. It's making a bad situation worse. And in the end, it is Israel that is going to suffer for it. In order to say that, do I really have to say all that is wrong with every other country in the world at the same time?

the west has excellent reason to criticize Israel. It is not only doing wrong, it is heavily supported in doing wrong by western money and western technology. It also has western diplomatic support in dodging UN criticism for its behaviour.

And you are asking someone to look at this with more depth? You who has never once admitted Israel has ever done anything wrong? You who quote statements from Israeli government press flaks as "irrefutable proof".

I criticize Israel because it is such a disappointment. Judaism once represented our highest aspirations. Israel has dragged it in the dirt with rabbis who praise God for the murder of Rabin, with people like you who preach a hatred of a people (semites, incidentally) that can only be called racism. I criticize Israel because it represents the destruction of a Judaism I long admired and loved.

Israel has been tried and condemned by its enemies? That is pure drivel. It has been condemned by leading figures in the west, by respected international bodies and scholars, by large numbers of Jews I still respect but whom hate mongers and propagandists like you dismiss as irrelevant.

Israel has had no chance of defend itself??  Please. It has generally had sympathetic treatment in all western news media. It has had support from virtually every western government. It has had millions of fanatics like you who peddle propaganda on a volunteer basis and who scream "anti-semite" at anybody who dares to tell the truth.

Israel is awash in people like you who are the victim paranoids, and who talk as though the most powerful military state in the region is still a collection of helpless victims. Get over it.

And, no. You will not convince me. That must sound strange to you, a man who has devoted his life to the search for truth.  But I know too well what you are. I have known a great many StanTs, all of them blind and committed propagandists peddling hatred. One of your boys from Montreal, incidentally, is now teaching at a fundamentalist Christian bible school in the west where he has teamed up with far right Christian nutbars looking for the end of the world in the coming days. He is also an advisor to Stephen Harper. I met him several times in Montreal. So I know the type.

Graeme, you wrote:

"And, in fact, the west ... won't supply even sandwiches to Palestine."

Clearly, it's not sandwiches that you're ingesting. Some figures for you, graeme:

"On December 17, 2007, eighty-seven countries and international organizations met in Paris and pledged to provide $7.4 billion over three years to the Palestinian Authority." New York Times, December 18, 2007.

In 2005, the West Bank and Gaza received $304 per capita in foreign aid, making it second only to the Republic of Congo.

In 2006 and 2007, aid to the Palestinians increased by more than 50 percent.

"Since 2007, donor countries have pledged more than $10 billion to the Palestinians." The American Task Force on Palestine. Same source: "The United States has transferred $200 million to the Palestinian government." July 24, 2009.

I could go and on, graeme. But you don't need me to destroy your credibility. You're doing a superb job of it all on your own.

Now tell us how much israel is allowing through. Tell us about the blockades by land and sea. (The sea ones, by the way, are usually referrred to by their correct name, piracy). tell us about the levels of poverty and malnutrition shortage of medical supplies in Palestine.

And while you're giving a (theoretical) figure on aid to Palestine, how about giving us the figure for aid to Israel which does not have high rates of poverty and malnutrition or a lack of medical supplies?

Or don't the boys give you those figures in your handy little "fact" booklet for propagandists?

And how like  you to ignore most of my post to isolate one sentence as though that's the whole story. It's a style of talmudic debate, of course,but not a flattering example of the genre.

Another example of irrefootable prufe.

show me the pictures, graeme. You know, the ones of the starving little Gazan children with protruding bellies. Oh dear, can't find any? You can find plenty of African children, where there really is starvation. And believe me, if the Israelis truly were starving the Palestinians, we'd know about it, in spades. There'd be pictures on every anti-Israel site. Ever wonder why there aren't?

And if you call my figures "theoretical", how about providing some that refute them? You keep mocking my "irrefootable prufe", but you are completely unable to do any "refooting". Unless, of course, it's putting your venerable foot into your mouth.

Want figures on aid allowed into Gaza on a daily basis? Sure. Here:

http://www.imemc.org/article/58151 (this particular one refers to 90 - ninety - nine zero - trucks of aid allowed into Gaza just before Operation Cast Lead)

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/02/world/fg-clinton-mideast2 (this one tells us that the US - that's America, the Yoonited States, not Israel - that's limiting aid to Gaza. Ooops, graeme messes up again.)

Let's see your evidence of "piracy" graeme. Israel has allowed so-called "peace" boats to reach Gaza on a number of occasions. (it's called "google" graeme. It helps you find stuff to back up your arguments. but then I suspect your difficulty is that you keep making things up - and then you can't back them with facts, so you just bluster, as always.)

graeme, a bit more on your accusation of piracy:

"The arms travel overland to Egypt, through a variety of routes that cross Yemen, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and South Africa and eventually meet in Sudan, where they are moved to Egypt's Sinai desert. After the materiel enters the Sinai, it is transferred into Gaza via tunnels underneath the "Philadelphia Corridor," the Gaza-Egypt border that runs through the city of Rafah. Less frequently, arms are moved to Gaza via the Mediterranean Sea: the weapons are deposited in waterproof barrels submerged below the surface and tied to buoys eventually retrieved by fishermen." (my emphasis)

Source: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In short, graeme, you make it way too easy for me. You fire out accusations without any proof and I simply do a couple of quick searches and you're toast. Wanna keep playing? Your move.

Oh, and just by the way, Talmudic debate is precisely the opposite of what you think it is. Far from cherry-picking, Talmudic debate requires the absolute in-depth scrutiny and analysis of every single word, never mind every fact.

Once again, our graeme puts his refoot in it.

If you will note, my reference to Talmudic debate explicity referred to people who do not understand the principles of it. Like you.

Thank you for giving us your usual irrefutable proof from official Israeli army sources resported by thinly disguised propaganda agencies. Now, I have enough respect for you to expect you must be able to see through such propaganda agencies, and you cannot possibly pass on ISraeli army handouts as proof. And that means you must be deliberately misleading us.

And the Palestinians smuggle weapons through tunnels and then waterproof them for protection? No doubt. Do those weapons smuggled through the tunnels include fighter jets? tanks? artillery? phosphorous shells? cluster bombs. APCs? If so, why didn't the palestinians unwrap them they were attacked with similar weapons in the hands of those poor, victimized Israelis?

Do you have the faintest understanding of military weapons, what is required for war, the weapons, the training,the maintenance? Can you understand the stunning silliness of creating fear over an arsenal of whatever could be smuggled through a tunnel and wrapped in saran wrap for protection?

As to ISrael letting people in to Palestine, you are either stunningly naive or are not telling the truth. The latest delegation to attempt a visit to Palestine by sea was stopped on the open sea in international waters by the ISraeli navy (illegal - that is an act of piracy). Its members, including a nobel laureate, were arrested and taken to Israel.

If there is one thing I have learned in my tours as a CF peacekeeper, including the middle east, is that there are never any "good guys" in these situations.

graeme, I gave you plenty sources, including Israeli ones. You give us none whatsoever. Are you denying that the Palestinians smuggle arms in from Egypt? (Silly hyperbole is NOT an argument; it's little better than your ad hominen attacks). The New York Times is a "thinly disguised Israeli source"? Really? Could have fooled me, and a lot of other folks who happen to think that venerable old Times is anything but pro-Israel.

You point to one boat stopped by the Israeli navy, and ignore a considerable number that were allowed in, to spread their propaganda and BS. They didn't expect the first one to be allowed in. Or the second or third. So they just kept coming until they finally scored their victory - Israel stopped them. Yee hah!

graeme, even if you have to admit you're getting beyond silly.

Okay StanT, if you are so willing to show how fundamentally ignorant you are of media and war (or deliberately misleading on both), I'm h appy to help.

1. the middle east media centre. Your theme has consistently been that the palestinians cannot be trusted, and the media of the whole world leans to anti-semitism and, since arabs are the worst anti-semites (in your curious definition of that term), then how the hell can you present the middle east media centre - made up largely of Palestinian journalists as an indepdendent source and therefore reliable. Are you seriously suggesting that you trust the honesty of a news source coming from what is surely the most anti-jewish group in the world as a reliable and independent source? If so, then your whole cartoon caricature of that region and of the world media begins to look pretty silly.

Oh - a minor footnote - you have the interesting comment that Palestinian rockets are aimed at civilians. If you knew anything about weapons, you would know those crude rockets are not aimed at all. They are simply fired off indiscriminately - which is why so few people get killed by them. If you want to kill people and aim for effect, you need guided bombs, artillery, rifles - and it's the Israelis who have those - which is why so many get killed.

Where you have sources, you don't understand them - and you often use them, as you used middle east media centre - in such a way that it can only be called dishonest. And when it comes to military matters - like the nature and threat of various kinds of weaponry or the reasons for civilian deaths, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

2. the story you quote is simply a report of a statement by the Israeli army. It does not say it is the opinion of reporters that that actually happened. It is reporting something said by the Israeli army. The reporters may or may not believe it. It is there job, t hough, to report what was said. Do you consider the ISraeli army a reliable source?

3. middle east news media centre is, in fact, an organization dedicated to presenting the Palestinian view - PALESTINIAN - of the conflict. Normally, its reporting is heavily critical of israel including many, many stories of all the things you say Israel has never done - like killing children, stealing land, blockading, etc.

If you really consider it a realiable source, how come you never NEVER quote its other stories, the ones about all those things you say Israel never does?  Why just this tame one? Can you really be that naive and sloppy? Or are you deliberately misleading us?

4. Don't you read your own sources? You cited the LA times, not the NY Times.In any case, the ISraeli agency I was referring to was neither of those. It was the ISraeli army - though I wouldn't be suprised if you announced too that is anti-semitic.

5. Your LA Times story, if you troubled to read it, did not really support anything you said. Quite the contrary, the US denied aid to that part of Palestine invaded by Israel. Since my point had been that the western world generally is far, far more generous in aid to Israel than to arabs, your story does not dispute my point. In fact, it supports it.

6. I named one ship stopped by the ISraeli navy. In fact, there were more. I saw no reason to mention all the others. I still don't. And even if that were the only one stopped (which it wasn't) that would hardly excuse your omitting the information, pretending no such thing had ever happened at all.

In any case, Israel had no right to stop any ship that was outside its own waters. No country in the world has that right. And it certainly had no right to board it and to take the people on it captive. That is piracy. That is what the word means.

7. And you think it right to stop ships because the people on them would just spread their propaganda and BS? You mean the way you do? And you think any country has the right to arrest people on the high seas to stop them from going to a country simply because it doesn't like what they might say? What a pillar of democracy and free speech you are!

I have no doubt the Palestinians are getting arms. I never said otherwise i know of no country in the world that is not getting arms. I know of no law international or otherwise that any country has the right to stop any other country from getting arms.

I understand Israel is getting arms, too. In fact, it is getting jets and tanks and APCs and artillery and cluster bombs. Do you think t he world should intervene and say Israel is not allowed to get those? I mean if Israel has the right to stop Palestine from getting the sort of crude explosives and rifles you could buy in any gun shop in the US, don't we have the right to stop Israel from getting so much more of so much more powerful equipment? (How many destroyers do you figure there are in the Palestinian navy? How come you can see a Palestinian rifle as a dreadful threat, but can't even notice the squadrons of Israeli fighter jets, the bombers, the tanks, and all the rest?) I guess it's the same way you can mourn the death of a rabbi, but not even see the piles of bodies of Palestinian children.

To say I am disappointed by the incredible short-sightedness by some United Church leaders at the GC meeting is an understatement; for me, if the resolution to boycott Israeli institutions passes, it will be a deal breaker. I will pull my support of the United Church altogether (I am a third-generation member and have spent my entire life within the church).

I read with interest the arguments already posted; however, I am not seeing anyone acknowledge the history of Israel, a history that MUST be considered when discussing how the country has transformed to what it is today. Don't forget the repeated attacks upon Israel by its Arab neighbours, specifically the first attack (which occurred the day after Israel became an independent state) when Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq waged invasions. Then there was the 1956 Sinai War, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Certainly the unhospitable treatment of Jewish people worldwide has transpired in millions of Jews chosing Israel as a place to live and raise their families; indeed, is this GC resolution another example of the Jewish people being singled out? I agree with those who have declared that the United Church is not taking a similar stand against other countries who are guilty of more inhumane crimes than the occupation (again, as a result of the wars and geographic neighbours who do not believe Israel even has a right to exist) and Israeli settlements. 

Hello Shar,

With regard to the discussion around the history of Israel and its significance regarding issues o today,  I direct you to another recent thread that caught Alex's attention - hence the creation of this thread.

the recent thread, found in Religion and Faith, is:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/ucc-being-attacked-anti-semitic

This thread is quite active.

I do not think your arguments supports your case well. First regardless of the reasons it has been fairly well documented that Israel has acted illegally in many cases. Even you hint at that when you use the words "In most cases"

I believe your argument and people who support Israel's action would be better recieve if you could admit to some guilt on the behalf of Israel.  A better case could be made that Israel is being reasonable at most times but that it is also wrong at times Whether true or not I do not know but it is at least a better argument, since by ignoring any wrong doing by Israel it weakens your whole argument.

(I believe most other countries at war have acted in illegal ways in the past and certainly those in civil wars or in wars with their neighbours, and they ALL lie about it, even to themselves) 

I do not believe that would necessarily weaken Israel moral position, althrough I am naive.

However I am only interested in why we choose Israel to boycott based on whether or not it is justified in light the Palestians actions, but on comparing Israel to countries such as China and the U.S.. They too make claims of self-defense, and they both seem to have a weaker case in linking their activities in Iraq et al (US) and Tibet, western China (China). There are Palestians and others who do want to wipe out Israel, (a significant minority of them do) But few Iraqis or few Tibetatian, or other non ethically Chinese want to wipe out China, or the US..

I am unable to determine what is right or wrong as I have relatively little knowledge or expertise to determine so. However I respect Graemes opinions because not only is he a historian, he is informed and intelligent.I also know many anti-Israel people and I know many of them are anti-semetic, however I know that Graeme is not by his words and deeds, and reputation,  so his opinion carries weight with me, certainly more then other critiques of  Israel who I know to be tainted by bigotry .

What puzzles me is not just the question of a boycott, but also why Israel and the Middle East carries so much time in the Canadian media, our foreign policy, and even in domestic elections. I mean the United Church is debating other subjects but the media is only focusing on the Israel-Palestinian resolutions.

Before anyone suggests, I do not buy the oil and money argument, because Canada has enough oil and wealth. Plus other areas of the world have resurces to be exploited. I also do not buy the Argument that it is also because of the number of Jews or Arabs who live in Canada, as they are relatively few.

I  suspect that it is partly due to the fact that Isreal has a relatively free press,and that thus we have a more clear picture of the horrors of war.  

I am concerned That it is a diversion from the real problems underlying the world albeit part part of the problem. We can argue over the Middle East, or we can examine the activities that we do in the west that directly support war.

I agree with you. However it leaves with me these thoughts.

In South East Asia we were able to do things that supported public opinon in the US that was being raised up against the war. At the time it China was much more isolated from the west and was not a democracy and anything done in protests would have had little if no effect on the situation. So for practical reasons it made sense to focus on South East Asia.

In South Africa we were also able to affect public opinion in Europe and the US and affect public opinion in South Africa. In South Africa our boycott was supported by the ANC the main opposition at the time.

I agree that we need to speak out against evil, but in Isreal their are  Jews and Arabs who oppose war and support a more reasonable peaceful process.. As well there are Palestinians in the terrortories who support peace and a negotiated settlement.*

So after these thoughts I am asking what is the postion of the pro-peace Israeli left, and as welll as the Palestinans in the terrortories who support a negotiated peace, postions on boycotts? What do they beleiev is the role of those of us in the west.

Do they support a boycott like the ANC did?

I say all this because I am uncomfortable with any action Canada and the west  takes in other parts of the world, other then food and medical aid and education.

Perhaps its a time to say no to the weapons industry in the west, focus on disarming the west of nukes and other weapons of war, and promote education and health care globally.  Focus on what we do that supports war globally.

 I know I am naive but I know states in Africa who spends much more on buying arms from us then they do on health care, The same people who sell weapons in Africa are the same ones who sell them to the middle east.

I also believe its hypocritcal of us to demand Iran stop deveolping nuclear capacity while the west maintains itys huge aresenal of nukes. I also know that our(the west) war activities as well as Israelis, only goes to justify the existence of oppressive and pro war factions in the rest of the world.

It seems to me that whatever we (Europeans and North Americans of European descent) have done in the world starting with the Crusades 500 years ago, then colonialism, and post colonialism has resulted in disasters for all the people of the world.

Certainly as you have pointed out these activites have resulted in things that are abhorent to Judaism and the best in most world religions as well.

*(As oppose to those who want to destroy the Jewish State and will accept nothing less, and I am presupposed to believe that whether or not the establishment of Israel was right 60 years ago, the Jews who live there now will fight on, so that the only way to achieve peace now is a negotiated peace)

Self defense is not illegal and that's all that Israel has done. Those who find them "guilty" simply want Israel to allow the palestinians to murder them indiscriminantly and just take it. Israel can and should do what's necessary to protect itself and those who call it illegal discredit only themselves.

I'm afraid there is a larger and more complex question which makes many of our issues off the point.

We all assume that there are rules and laws for the conduct of war. That goes back to very old traditions and, in particular, to the Hague conventions of pre-WW1, and t he Geneva conventions of the interwar years. But the reality is that there are no such rules. Both sides ignored them in both world wars and in all the wars since. Even the war trials of leading Naziis didn't change that since the crimes of only one side were investigated.All sides happily have killed civilians for a century. In fact, they have been major targets in all wars for the last seventy years and more, and in all those wars, civilians have been by far the most numerous casualties.

Part of it is technology. Bombs are very nondiscriminating. It's also the rise of nationalism - as nothing creates hatred and a willingness to kill so much as nationalism. For a sample, read the posts of StanT. That sort of hatred rarely existed in war until the last couple of hundred years.

Anybody who talks about war crimes by the other side is talking pure propaganda. There are, I'm afraid, no war crimes. If there were, Bush would be now have been hanged for the use of torture, and both Bush and Israeli leaders would be hanged for the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells.

Nor is there any crime in terror. The use of terror has been a standard practice by all countries for generations. I include Canada in that. Terrorism is the deliberate killing and torture of civilians, usually random, to inspire fear. Everybody does it. When Israel invaded Gaza, it gave the spread of fear as its major objective. And that is the meaning of terrorism. I'm afraid we all do it.

Terrorism is what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about. The nuclear bomb is the ultimate terror weapon since it is the most indiscriminate weapon ever devised. All nuclear stockpiles - US, Russia, China, North Korea, France, Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan - are essentially about terror.

We are not dealing with good guys and bad guys. We are dealing with a world in which the nature of war has changed enormously, and it has changed for everybody. We are not dealing with individual nations. We are dealing with a world set of values (or lack of one.)

The UC deals with nations because that is the way we are accustomed to seeing issues. But the real issue here is not the behaviour of a nation. Yes, Israel has behaved atrociously, and is a disgrace to Judaism. But it's also true that everybody else has, too.

I have argued it is legitimate to single out Israel because you have to single out somebody - and certainly israel has been guilty. But maybe the church has to reconsider exactly what the problem is.

Maybe we can't play the normal world game of dealing with this as a national issue. Maybe the whole idea of war has become something the whole church has to pull away from. Our whole stance has been that violence must be conducted according to legal rules. But that broke down a long time ago. Maybe the church has to recognize there is no Christian role in the direction the world has taken.

We have all become mirror images of each other. The Hitler we all reject has, indeed, become the model for all our behaviour. We now live in a world that Hitler would have understood and approved of. Look at the posts of StanT. They are a constant call to national  hatred and indiscriminate killing. That is not to single out StanT. We have almost all of us become like that.

And that may be the problem this church has to recognize and deal with.

graeme

Of course the other point is shoudl the UCC be putting time, energy and money into a political statement / ban aimed at Israel.  Is that what we want our leaders to be doing during our annual meeting.  Politics?

¹⁷If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, ¹⁸do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. ¹⁹You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." ²⁰Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. ²¹For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

It's not politics but the work of justice. That's a time-honoured biblical concept. Sometimes it is the work of the prophet. And yes, it's what we should be doing as God's people. 

Jon - whether a country does something legal is not up to you or me to decide. Only a court can decide that.  I will certainly agree that Israel has a right to defend itself. So, for that matter, does Palestine. But only a judge can decide whether an action taken constitutes a defence under the law.

However, many countries - including Israel - refuse to recognize the right of any international court to judge their actions.

You will say that israel has a right to refuse, perhaps that international courts are prejudiced, etc. Maybe. But that's not the point.

The point is that unless you have courts which decide these cases, then international law does not exist; and there is no such thing as legal or illegal. So there is no point in discussing it.

graeme

graeme, your long, point-by-point "rebuttal" demonstrates exactly how little you understand of the Talmudic method of debate. See, in Talmud study, you start with a truth and make an assumption based on that truth. If the assumption is logical, you can then make a further assumption. Unfortunately graeme, your assumptions are completely illogical. Let's take your points one by one.

1. the middle east media centre ... made up largely of Palestinian journalists  Are you seriously suggesting that you trust the honesty of a news source coming from what is surely the most anti-jewish group in the world as a reliable and independent source? If so, then your whole cartoon caricature of that region and of the world media begins to look pretty silly.

Graeme, you complain when I use pro-Israel sources, and now you complain because I use a pro-Palestinian source. This is simply ridiculous. Think about this logically, if you can. If a highly pro-Palestinian source admits Israel did something good, then it's logical to assume that either the story is true, or the good thing that Israel did has been downplayed. I use this source because it suits my purpose perfectly.

If you knew anything about weapons, you would know those crude (Palestinian) rockets are not aimed at all. They are simply fired off indiscriminately - which is why so few people get killed by them.

Let's apply logic here again, graeme. If you watched the HRW video I linked to, you'll know that their sheer unpredictability is what makes the firing of these rockets a war crime. They are pointed at a part of Israel that is obviously civilian and they are meant to terrorise.

As for the number of people killed, you take no account of the fact that in Sderot, there is a bomb shelter within 15 seconds running distance of any point outdoors. Imagine for a moment, if you will, that you are doing your shopping. You hear the code red alarm. Try this. Count from 1 to 15. If you're lucky, that's how long you have to find shelter.

Similarly, the people of Sderot are too afraid to sleep in their bedrooms at night. They sleep in their basements, which also saves lives (plenty of pictures of houses destroyed and damaged by rockets, if you care to look for them).

And then there are the cases that defy explanation. The rocket that landed in a nursery school classroom seconds after the kids left for recess. The rocket that landed in a yeshiva class room but injured no-one because the students had, uncharacteristically, lingered a minute or two longer than usual on their way back from afternoon services.

In other words, it's not for lack of trying that the Palestinian rockets have killed relatively few people.

If you want to kill people and aim for effect, you need guided bombs, artillery, rifles - and it's the Israelis who have those - which is why so many get killed.

You argue that's why so many get killed. I say that's why the ratio of civilian to military deaths in the recent Gaza conflict was among the lowest in the world.  I say Israel does all it can to avoid civilian casaulties. You join your illustrious forebears in slinging a blood libel against Israel.

2. the story you quote is simply a report of a statement by the Israeli army. It does not say it is the opinion of reporters that that actually happened. It is reporting something said by the Israeli army. The reporters may or may not believe it. It is there job, t hough, to report what was said. Do you consider the ISraeli army a reliable source?

And your figures of civilian casaulties are those provided by Hamas and Hamas sympathizers. Logically, which has more credibility? The Hamas numbers, unsupported by any evidence, or the IDF numbers, which are backed by painstaking, name by name investigation and evidence.

Ah, you ask, is the IDF a reliable source when it comes to its own soldiers? Let's take a truth and make an assumption from there. Yesterday, the Jerusalem Post reported that a soldier of the elite Givati Brigade was found guilty of stealing a credit card from a home in Gaza and using it to withdraw NIS 1,600 (less than $200)  from an ATM. Despite the fact that the soldier returned the card and the money, with interest, he was sentenced to 7.5 months in jail.

He stole. From the enemy. He was prosecuted. By his own army. He was found guilty. He was sentenced quite harshly.

so graeme, based on this, it is logical to assume that the IDF is not always out simply to whitewash the actions of its own soldiers.

3. middle east news media centre is, in fact, an organization dedicated to presenting the Palestinian view - PALESTINIAN - of the conflict. ... If you really consider it a realiable source, how come you never NEVER quote its other stories, the ones about all those things you say Israel never does?  Why just this tame one? Can you really be that naive and sloppy? Or are you deliberately misleading us?

Why should I quote Palestinian points of view when you and your cohorts do that? My purpose here is to refute those points of view with logic and facts, all of which I provide on every occasion. You, on the other hand, never back your arguments with a single source. You just argue. Illogically.

4. Don't you read your own sources? You cited the LA times, not the NY Times.In any case, the ISraeli agency I was referring to was neither of those. It was the ISraeli army - though I wouldn't be suprised if you announced too that is anti-semitic.

I posted an article from the New York Times, which talked about the amount of money pledged by Western governments. The LA Times article was something different. It referred to the fact that after pledging $900 million, the US was redistrubing some of its pledges (not all), from Gaza towards supporting Fatah. You had said that the world doesn't even give the Palestinians "a sandwich". This article proves you wrong. And I have no idea what "agency" you're referring to.

5. Your LA Times story, if you troubled to read it, did not really support anything you said. Quite the contrary, the US denied aid to that part of Palestine invaded by Israel. Since my point had been that the western world generally is far, far more generous in aid to Israel than to arabs, your story does not dispute my point. In fact, it supports it.

Answered in full above. The US did not deny "aid to that part of Palestine invaded by Israel". If you troubled to read the story, you would have seen that of the $900 million, $300 million was to go to Gaza and the balance to supporting Fatah, which, unless I'm mistaken, is PALESTINIAN!! So your point, like all your others, graeme, is simply WRONG!

6. I named one ship stopped by the ISraeli navy. In fact, there were more. I saw no reason to mention all the others. I still don't. And even if that were the only one stopped (which it wasn't) that would hardly excuse your omitting the information, pretending no such thing had ever happened at all.

I named more than one ship that was allowed through by the Israeli army. In fact there were more! I saw no reason to mention all of them. I still don't. And even if they only allowed in a few, that would hardly excuse your twisting my words, pretending they mean what you want them to mean.

In any case, Israel had no right to stop any ship that was outside its own waters. No country in the world has that right. And it certainly had no right to board it and to take the people on it captive. That is piracy. That is what the word means.

So you're saying that Israel has no right of self-defence. That's what I thought you were saying. Thank you for being so very clear about it.

7. And you think it right to stop ships because the people on them would just spread their propaganda and BS? You mean the way you do? And you think any country has the right to arrest people on the high seas to stop them from going to a country simply because it doesn't like what they might say? What a pillar of democracy and free speech you are!

As you demonstrate so brilliantly, this is exactly the kind of BS and propaganda that does so much damage to the truth and to Israel's cause.

More? Bring it!

Alex, you make an interesting argument, which has been repeated ad nauseam by graeme.

You want to know why I never admit that Israel is sometimes guilty.

Does a defence lawyer stand up in court and say "Your honour, my client is innocent of these charges. But you should know that he once shoplifted."?

This would be ridiculous. My purpose here is to defend Israel against false accusations and to provide evidence of that falsity. For example, you insist that Israel has and does act illegally. I submit that in most cases, Israel has been charged, judged and sentenced by her enemies. That is not a fair trial and I will fight for the right to tell the truth.

graeme, you wrote: "Look at the posts of StanT. They are a constant call to national  hatred and indiscriminate killing. That is not to single out StanT. We have almost all of us become like that."

Graeme, find, copy and paste one single word I have written that is even remotely a call to hatred and killing. Do so NOW or forever hold your peace. With this slander, you have given up any right you have to honest debate. (Incidentally, I have flagged your post as offensive)

You have consistently blamed Palestinians for all that is wrong. You have accused them of wanton murder, crippling, have justified Israeli attacks on them as thoroughly deserved, have ignored their sufferings. and blamed them for Israeli sufferings. That is hate mongering.

And I don't give a damn who you go whimpering to about it. You are encouraging hatred and justifying killing. That is contemptible.

And you have never provided any evidence to counter my arguments, while I have given page after page after page of evidence to prove what I say. That is not hate mongering. That is truth - and in the words of a famous movie, you can't handle the truth.

And you have never heard a word I've said. I have never "encourag(ed) hatred and justif(ied) killing". I have called on the Palestinians to stop their terrorism, and stated clearly that in return, Israel will give them peace. The way you constantly twist my words to say anything different is what is truly contemptible.

Yeah but lets look at the root causes of injustices. Graeme points out bthat Israel is a good point to start, but he also looks at the braoder issues as to how the world has change and how war has changed over the years.

He also suggest that Bush could be tried and hanged for war crimes. I somehow believe that Bush is so ignorant that he could be could be innocent. However I definately believe that Cheney and others in the Bush administrations are guilty and that the prove exists that they are guilty of war crimes and other crimes against humanity. The same goes for Tony Blair and members of his governement.

While Israel might be as Graeme says a good place to start in condeming autrocities, it is also a country that if we boycott will have relatively little effect on Canada.

Also  it does less to draw attention to the greater problems underlying war as we get lost in the debate over the specific issues dealing with Israel and Palestines.

However if the UCC demanded Canada charges and issues warrents for the crimes against humanities that Cheney and Blair and there co-conspirators are guilty of. It would have real consequences.

These people would be arrested and tried when they come to Canada.

It would also lead to serious consequences for Canada, as I am sure the US and Britian would retaliate against us in some ways that would seriously undermine our well being in Canada.

This I believe is  more inline with the Biblical traditions of the Prophets and Jesus. When they called out for justice they paid a price for it. It was not only the fact they called for justice that made them important, but also the fact that they were willing to pay a price for it and did. Thats what made there calls for justice both effective and memorable.

If Canada and other nations paid a price for our calls for justice it would certainly draw attention from others. It might also lead to real change globally and start the world on a path where there was less war and more prosperty for all. 

It so easy to call for justice when we do not have to pay a large price for it.

It reminds me when when UCC churches in Ontario boycotted the Trillium program because of its funding from gambling.  I agree that governments supporting and especially promoting lotteries and casinos is wrong, but the churches paid a small price for doing so and had very little effect on changing governement policy. All that resulted was the exclusions of disabled people, who paid the price and they were not even consulted.

All the while the Churches continued to accept donations in the millions from people who left us money made from investments in compagnies like Haliburton, Boeing, and others who made money from feeding war.

If we were to reject the millions of  dollar coming from people who left us money coming from estates that made money from stocks in these compagnies,  the churches would have paid a much bigger price and been forced to sacrifice a great deal.  

If Churches (and Canadians) were willing to make this kind of sacrifice it might have made news and pointed out to others that there continued investments through our RRSP and Pension funds are the equilivant of participating in the killing of not just Palestinians, and Jews, but also millions of Africans, Asians (including Sri Lanka, and China) 

To me that would be true Biblical witness of Justice. Demanding Justice, but not willing to do so where you do not pay a price is not biblical IMHO DKS.

Toronto Conference spoke very forcefully about the civil war in Sri Lanka this past Annual Meeting. Two members of the Order of Ministry are from Sri Lanka.

That's nonsense. The United Church has been in discussion with the government on that particular issue. Our congregation has continued to raise concerns over the bias of Trillium funding. Oother congregations have accpeted the King's Shilling, without the consent of the presbytery.

Having led one congregation through accessibility without resorting to Trilllium funding, I know it's possible. Other congregations in my city have done similar projects. It all depends on your priorities.

Oh? If you know whwre those millions are, let me know. I could put them to use. Boeing makes civil aircraft and aircraft that save lives. You want them to stop making those?

Or we would be in a lot deeper financial trouble and unable to do significant ministry at all...

Stanley, you don't understandwhat source is. It is simply a statement of where infomation came from. It is not proof. It is barely even evidence. I can for example, give you a source for the statement that the elders of zion are in a plot to control the world. But the source is neither proof nor evidence. You don't appear to understand that.

You have lavishly told us of the faults of Palestinians. You admit you have. Whether you have what it pleases you to call proof does not matter. You have placed the blame for all brutalities and killings and lies on the Palestinians. That is calling on people to hate. Do you understand basic English? You cannot in the same breath admit you have done that,and then say you didn't preach hate.

Nor do you have proof. You have very selectively used sources -as you also admitted re the use of the middle east news media. In scholarship, that selective us of sources is called lying. And  that,too is using the English language correctly.

Your legal "defence attorney" tactics are as immature as your debating skills.

Then you talk utter nonsense which,I fear - and despite its childish silliness - you believe. All courts which have examined Israel have been enemies? BS Unless,as you do you believe that everybody who disagrees with anything israeli is an anti semite.

graeme

I did not say all United Churches refused funding from Trillium. I was just saying that many of those those that did decide to do so did not bear the cost. People with disabilities did, and they were not consulted. Bravo to your church for bearing the cost of making your building more accessible. I would be interested in hearing the story of how your congregation did so. If you write a short article about it I would be pleased to post it on my web site, www.accessiblechurch.ca.  Its important that your church not only do the right thing but also inform other churches that you have done so and how.

But I want to return to my main point now without getting off track.  

Your first point rightly defended the  UCC for being  involved in politics as justice work, based on  Biblical principles.

What I am saying in response is that the Prophits and Jesus when they pointed out injustice or took actions against it,  they paid a heavy price. A boycott of Israel/Palestine will come at very little cost to Canada or the UCC.

However calling for Dick Cheney or Tony Blair and their co-conspirators to be held responsible for their crimes against humanity would come with a heavy price to Canada. Likewise refusing to sell our natural resources to the US or China would also come at a price to Canada. Both would however more inline with what the prophets did.

Also I know Boeing makes airplanes as well as weapons of war. Israelis also do good things in medical research, education, rehabilitaion of the sick, and disabled.

I am not as informed as others but I know that Canadains RRSPs and our pension funds have massive investments in Boeing and other corporations that do both good and produce weapons of war.  If everyone were to divest of there investments of Boeing until they stopped making money out of weapons of war, it is more likely they would do so, especially since they need the investments of pensions funds, especially now during the economic downturn. The same go for the many other multi-nationals that do so.

We would have to pay a price through since so many multi-nationals are involve and it would mean our pension funds would loose money in the process.  Israel is a much smaller market so the cost is significantly lower to us.

Also I must point out that not only do US based multinationals benefit from war, but Britian and Sweden had extremely large weapons manufacturers as well. Sweden I have been told even depends on the international weapons trade as a percentage of their GNP then even the US.

These cooporations are producing and selling weapons to Israel, but also to many African states, middle eastern states, South America, Asia and others. Many countries in Africa spend more on arms then they do on medicine or health care in general. 

Lets divest ourselves of these coorporations, lets go after other western countries like Sweden and the US. Lets stop selling resources to China, which is now one of the great powers in the world.

Lets stop the international arms trade and support disarming the west.

For too long the west has been screwing with the rest of the world, lets take on the real big targets. Thats what the prophets and Jesus did.

How much time did the prophets and Jesus spend worring about there budgets, as opposed to acting on what was right and naming evil?

Jesus talked a lot about money. More about money than naming evil.

So what kind of investment strategy did he follow, growth based or value based?

Also did he pass the collection plate during services or did he just put out a bucket for people to put money in.

graeme,

When one parses through your vitriolic verbosity, one is left with a flacid,  inadequate, logically unsound, fallacious argument that lacks evidence to support its claims and a long list of abusive ad hominems, straw men and the stench of fish.  Your presentation and condescending demeanor is disrespectful to others who even attempt to engage in dialogue that quickly turns into disputation.  Your unwillingness or inability to produce evidence when requested so many times in so many different threads is proof  that you really don't give a damn about what anyone else thinks, period.  And I add, ever.  With this attitude, you have revealed that pesky heel.  Let this be your hubris:  your dismissive,  disdainful attitude toward  readers and posters here in the WonderCafe.

In light of this observation, and the pain many of us have suffered from banging our heads against walls because we read his prjudices, and the suffering that we endure when demanding proof until we are too exhausted to try anymore, I suggest that we engage in a comprehensive boycott of graemic arguments, fallacies and  insinuations at the  particular and universal levels.

Amen.

I fnd it amazing how people who havn't even been to the area in conflict and seen what goes on there can have so adamantly simplistic views of the situation.

I guess that's why barbers and taxi drivers are so full of advice on how to run countries.

I find this post to be offensive. I have flagged it as such as an ad hominian attack . I think the finger you point at Graeme has 4 fingers pointing at you. I see no fallacies in graemes argument, and the necessity of having to document all of ones opinons is pointless in a non academic disscussion board.

I find your point that Graeme doesn't given a damn about what anyone else thinks to be self evidently false. He cares and he cares a great deal, that why I believe him to be so pointed and clear. He has credibilty with me and althrough I do not understand everything he says, he has certainly help me understand more about the world.

I am all for boycotting people who promote hate or who are solely out to make trouble, but Graeme is not hatefully, he has an attitude that comes from being well informed and intelligent, and what you see as dismissive and disdainful is to me just frustration and anger at injustice in the world and disappointement at seeing greater potential being failed to be realised., something I can relate with and a quality I see in the prophets of the OT.

If you do not like it do not read him, I am sure many people ignore my posts, but to suggest people gang up on someone who is clearly following all the guidelines of conducts, and is informed, educated,  intelligent and compelling in his writing is just a manifestation of fear.

Graeme is one of the reasons I like Wondercafe. Take a look at http://wondercafe.ca/discussion/global-issues/middle-east-fresh-start-hackneyed-subject

If you do not like banging your head against something I suggest that you stop it. Since it is  you  are banging your head, so it is your problem not Graemes, and respect others who wish to engage him do so and do not demean him with attacks of the very nature you accuse him of engaging in. It takes two to fight. We will never aqgree with everyone, but it pays to listens if you are able too. There are people I am unable to listen to so I don't. I do not see that as there problem, but just one of my many limitations.  I only complain when I believe they have crossed the line of hatred towards a group or class of people, not towards a philosophy or mode of thinking or method of expressing oneself.

And believe me when I say I from my point of view as a HFA I find it very difficult to deal with people but I do because when I am able to I can benefit.

If the courts are biased and have predetermined an answer based solely on prejudice than those courts are illegitimate and their "rulings" are pure garbage. There is no bigger point than whether those "courts" have any standing or legitimacy. Unless and until a legitimate court is created someday there isn't any applicable international law. Israel will continue to defend itself and others will use these sham "courts" to produce proganda for them. I expect that to continue indefinitely and those who don't like it can take a flying leap.

I'm sorry but "that's not the point" has to be one of the all time stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. You're saying "this court ignores the law and the evidence but that's not the point,". Do you pay any attention to what you write?

No, that's paying attention to the world we live in. Palestinians have been waging an unprovoked war against Israel for a long time now. They constantly commit wanton murder and maiming. They have lied and blamed everything they can think of on Israel. They not only ignore the suffering of Israeli civilians it's obvious that the accompanying suffering of palestinian civilians mean nothing to them either. They know their own people are in misery and act only to perpetuate it, not alleviate it and they do so for no more reason that to use that suffering for anti-Israel propaganda. In this particular conflict the blame lies solely on the palestianians. They attacked Israel and continue to attack Israel, they deserve what's coming to them and more. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (you used that one already), America fought back up to and incluiding Hiroshima. When the Taliban committed the 9-11 attacks we invade Afghanistan and they had it coming. Iraq is a different story for a different thread. The point is when you attack first you deserve the counter attack. You don't get to play the victim card if the counter attack was bigger than you expected. The palestinians attacked Israel, they deserve any counter attack up to and including being wiped into non-existence. I'd love to see peace in the region before it gets that far but as a realist that's probably what it will take. It looks like the hatred of the palestinians runs so deep they would actually prefer to be annihilated to the very last person as opposed to living in peace with Israel.

It's pretty wide spread. Almost all of Israel neighbors want to destroy Israel completely. Even throughout the rest of the world the list of countries that are decent to Israel is a short one. For years I have heard that America is the only country that is truly pro-Israel and Britain, somewhat so. I think that's an exaggeration but probably not much of one. Anti-semitism isn't literally universal but it's tragically common. Your sarcasm was unfortunatly close to the truth even if not on the bullseye itself.

Alex, I suggest that you take a look at what graeme wrote above: that is only one example of  hateful, personally a busive writing.  Furthermore, if you count how many times graeme has been asked for evidence and it has either been completely ignored by him or he avoids it by suggesting that to provide such would be to difficult, or he obfuscates the request, especially in the last thread, which inspired your current thread, you will be amazed.  I suggest that as you  count all of the abusive ad hominems and other informal fallacies used, you will finally inderstand.  Then, examine what is left as his premises, still unsuported by evidence for the most part.  Just because someone sounds logical does not mean the argument being put forth is in anyway logically sound.

Also, Alex, this is not the first time you have misread my words.  For that, I can do nothing.  Reading sarcasm can be difficult, especially when comprehension of words is better when spoken and the subtle nuances of the words take on a different, less literal meanings.  However, if one reads only the literal meaning, that is fine with me. 

I find nothing offensive in what I have written.   After all, the GC is considering a similar boycott based partially on the history of a country's actions and using specific situations as well to underscore such a need.  Certainly, I am  writing in good company, am I not?

redhead, like StanT, you have not the faintest idea what evidence means. You think it means any report from a source that agrees with your point of view. But if it is a report from a world body that you don't like, then they are anti-semitic, and the report is not evidence at all.

As to StanT's teaching of hatred, the evidence is in  his own words. Everything he has ever written places all blame on Palestinians. They murder, cripple and lie. Those are his words. Read them. He has not written a single sentence in defence of those people. He has not written a single sentence critical of Israel for its treatment of them. He has, incidentally, completely and deliberately ignored all evidence to the contrary. (and in one passage he actually admits that, pleading he is a defence attorney in this case.)

He has never said a word that would induce anyone to like or feel sympathy  for Palestinians. Everything he has said would induce people to dislike them. That is what preaching hatred means. Please learn to read the English language.

graeme

Please give us an example of Stan's "teaching of hatred".

Just once, please back up your accusations.

Neither of those are germaine, as neither were practiced in Jesus' time.

lyh - don't waste my time. You can look at his posts yourself. You show me a single one in which he has expressed any sympathy for Palestinians or mentioned one occasion on which he thought they were right.

Then make a list of all the times he has accused them of causing problems.

It's so blatant that if you have read any of his posts at all, the fact that you can ask me for proof suggests you haven't the faintest interest in proof.

graeme wrote:

"redhead, like StanT, you have not the faintest idea what evidence means. You think it means any report from a source that agrees with your point of view. But if it is a report from a world body that you don't like, then they are anti-semitic, and the report is not evidence at all."

First, graeme, not only do I know what evidence means, I know how to use when writing.  I use the Chicago Style, and I hav used both methods presented below when  I cite my sources, also referred to below.

"Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide

The Chicago Manual of Style presents two basic documentation systems, the humanities style (notes and bibliography) and the author-date system. Choosing between the two often depends on subject matter and nature of sources cited, as each system is favored by different groups of scholars.

The humanities style is preferred by many in literature, history, and the arts. This style presents bibliographic information in notes and, often, a bibliography. It accommodates a variety of sources, including esoteric ones less appropriate to the author-date system.

The more concise author-date system has long been used by those in the physical, natural, and social sciences. In this system, sources are briefly cited in the text, usually in parentheses, by author’s last name and date of publication. The short citations are amplified in a list of references, where full bibliographic information is provided.

Below are some common examples of materials cited in both styles. Each example is given first in humanities style (a note [N], followed by a bibliographic entry [B]) and then in author-date style (an in-text citation [T], followed by a reference-list entry [R]). For numerous specific examples, see chapters 16 and 17 of The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition.

Online sources that are analogous to print sources (such as articles published in online journals, magazines, or newspapers) should be cited similarly to their print counterparts but with the addition of a URL. Some publishers or disciplines may also require an access date. For online or other electronic sources that do not have a direct print counterpart (such as an institutional Web site or a Weblog), give as much information as you can in addition to the URL. The following examples include some of the most common types of electronic sources."

I do  not dismiss concise, carefully composed sources that may refute my argument.  In fact, in our last exchange, politely I requested them for just that purpose.  I would never dismiss evidence from a world body as ani-semetic.  To do so would be immature and in poor judgment.  In fact, I would study the report carefully, to learn more and to ensure that the way you presented it was not out of context; any decent reader would do this.

You are not even pretending to follow the rules and the etiquette of  entering into a dialogue or even a disputation.  That is, at the very least, a distasteful way to present and defend your argument.  This is the last time I defend myself from one of your hurtful, malicious, personal attacks.

I stand by my former post.