Nothing new here. The Israeli government began it's program of annexation in 1967 and it continues today. I wonder how those  who don't see the point of a boycott view this. I hope the commissioners are paying attention.

There was no prgram of annexation during the war of 1967.  There was an attack on Israel, and it was based on  history of attack since I srael's creation by politicians post WW2.  And the state of Israel, under attack, being successful, took over territory.  That said, there is insurgence.  But Palestinians, who started conflict (Not all, no sweeping generaligations here), do also benefit from social programs, and have benefits that include healthcare, etc. 

This is what everyone is missing in the propeganda representation: there is more harmny to be cultivated.  Boycott means nothing and in the end hurts both Israelis and Palestinians.  Boycott Is a harsh, radical  manouver that will have have a negative impact on both parties. 

an·nex  (-nks, nks) tr.v. an·nexed, an·nex·ing, an·nex·es 1. To append or attach, especially to a larger or more significant thing. 2. To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city. 3. To add or attach, as an attribute, condition, or consequence.

Here's a definition of annex. Seems pretty clear to me. Gaza, the Sinai and the Golan Heights were all added to Israel after the 1967 war; Gaza was returned to the Palestinians and so was the Sinai in a peace agreement with Egypt. The Golan Heights remains part of Israel although the Israelis haven't made it official...yet.

I don't mean to be cruel redhead (I welcome you back to WC as  have others) but I suggest you take a look at the "benefits" the Palestinians are supposed to be enjoying in the WB. Do they enjoy freedom of movement? Do they control there own water resources? Can they obtain building permits as easily as the Jewish people in areas such as East Jerusalem? 

Anyway you have your opinion which I respect but just don't agree with. Best wishes.

Israel is a world problem on a much bigger scale than just Palestine. It is a nuclear power, the only one in the region, which is anxious to achieve military dominance in the region. To that end, it commands unquestioning support from the US, Canada and the UK.

There are several elements to contemplate - all of then threatening for the health and survival of the world.

Israel has been trading on the holocaust and centuries of victimization. Most people, by far, living today had nothing to do with the holocaust and the persecution. Most israelis, living today, had no experience of them.

Enough.

Thank you, easy does it, for your welcome.

Thank you also, for the definitions of annex and anneaxtion.

None of which applied to the intention of Israelis defending attack in 1967.  It is a cruel reality of war that "annexation" occurs, or as many other colonist countries refer to it "the spoils of victory"  (an equally abhorrent term, nonetheless the reality of humans at war, also a fact I find sadly abhorrent).

Beating a dead horse, because this came up many times over the years I have been a member of WC, no, everything does not start exactly with Nazi Germany and WWII.  But it does start with the Diaspora, a spreading of displaced Jews, spread throughtout continental Europe, Vatican Inquisition, multiple expulsions and pogroms that led to Zionism (which, as historical fact, did not mean relocating in Palestine, at least as understood and selected by Jews - see Dreyfuss Affair and references thereafter), and to understand that after WWII ythe State of Israel took in not only DP Jews, but also Catholics and others opposed to Nazi domination who either could return to nothing and/or were not welcome to return, even to nothing.

So Graeme, what do you say to this part of history?

So, UCCCAN, what do you say to unilateral boycott?

Call it what you will, but boycott is political, and my understanding is that there is a sparation between church and state.  Using state in a political sense of the term, where does church have the right to step into what has been outlined entirely as a political matter?

If the UCCAN wants to step in within the guidelines of humanitarian manners, then I fully support it.  But an economic boycott is merely political, and easily done.  Better to step up tp the plate and be involved in peace efforts, not an easy economic avoidance.  Afterall, how much does a Canadian consume of Israeli product annually?

And to my understanding of texts, (even if) Jesus overturned trading in the Temple on Sabbath or High Holiday, he never rejected the Temple, or his faith.  So how is a boycott in anyway what he did?  The citings of his actions are more of a demonstration than a call for boycott.  At its face, this is a rebellious act, but not calling upon everyone to engage in politic.

What do I say to this part of history? Well, for openers, I say that Moslems didn't cause this part - and they should not be punished for it.

I say that most Israelis today are not victims of persecution of any sort. they are,  in fact, persecutors.

I suppose I could get mad at the vikings who killed and raped my scottish ancestors. But it gets my Irish blood up to think of how those scots moved in on Northern Ireland. Of course, I resent the Scots and Irish for killing my native ancestors. But, then, they had come up for the south and killed the native natives - who could be in my ancestry. Meanwhile, some of those Vikings became French and, as normans, persecuted my english ancestors. - who I'm not crazy about becaue they conquered my French ancestors at Quebec. though I find it hard to forgive my French relatives for forcing me and my English relatives out of Quebec while the rest of Canada looked on with it's facing hanging. Not sure I can forgive Canada for that.

Where to start? Where to start?

Let's start with now.

Now, Israel is stealing land and generally persecuting palestinians. It also, with some 250 nuclear weapons is one of the world's major powers. It and the the US want to attack Iran - not because it might, some day, produce one nuclear bomb - or even a hundred. The nuclear bomb is as fake as Saddams' weapons of mass destruction. Remember that case?

The US wants a puppet government in Iran - like the one it installed in the 1950s. Israel wants military dominance, and more land than it can steal just from Palestinians.

The whole region is spinning out of control which means not only widespread suffering in the whole region, but the strong risk of a broader war that go go world wide and/or nuclear.

Let's say we start there.

You don't start from history. You start from now.

The call to action referred to in the opening post has nothing to do with the resolution coming before General Council in a few weeks. There is no reference to a boycott. Specifically, it asks people to take this action:

"Write a letter, e-mail, or fax to the Israeli Ambassador to Canada, asking her to call on the Israeli government to cancel the demolition order on the village of Susiya."

I believe that churches have the duty to encourage their members to follow the commandments, as Jesus so eloquently articulated. Love God and love your neighbour. Those actions have become politicized because we have powerful corporations constantly working against the well-being of the vast majority of people on this planet. Think about the actions of Moses standing up for the Hebrew people against Pharoah - that was truly political. 

That is different than the concept of the separation of church and state. It has to do with church not running the affairs of the state/nation or vice versa, the state not running the churches. 

I agree, let's start with now. It's too dangerous to do otherwise.