I suspect the truth spoken in this report will encourage many ordinary people and be offensive to leaders on both sides.

Hi Jim Kenny,

Thanks for sharing the link although it appeared to lead to a dead end when I clicked on it I was able eventually to work my way to the report.

I see a problem with the graphic on page 3 titled Palestinian Loss of Land 1947 to 2012 and quite frankly I think it is an embarrasing problem.

Three maps are placed side by side.  The UN 1947 plan is on the left, The 1949-1967 is in the centre and the 2012 map is on the right.

The map keys are where the problems rise.

For the first two maps Isreal is shown in white and Palestine is shown in green.  Nothing wrong with that.

The third map makes the critical blunder.  White is now defined as Isreal occupied land and Green remains Palestine.

The report should have splurged for a third colour to separate the White of Isreal from the whatatever of Isreali occupied territory.  The third graphic, because of some buffonery, has now deemed that all territory which we happily gave to Isreal in the UN 1947 plan and the 1949 to 1967 maps is territory which Isreal ilegally occupies.

How very, very, very stupid is that oversight?

It is going to hit the fan in the recommendations as well.  Recommendation 2 calls for a rejection of all violence which reads as putting all parties on the same level.  Recommendations 7 A and B call for an economic action (Boycott) of items produced in the settlements or the occupied territories (which again according to the 2012 map on page 3 is the whole of Isreal.

Bravo.

I suppose I should get on the phone and see if anybody who read the report before they posted it to the web has a clue.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thanks John, I fixed the broken links. I'll also make bring your concerns about the map to the GCO point person on this news release.

Aaron

Hi AaronMcGallegos,

I have just now gotten off the phone with Mary-Francis Denis.  I have also sent an e-mail directly through the contact us link on the GC-41 Web page outlining what I believe is a serious mistake.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi All,

And now I have just gotten off of the phone with Bruce Gregerson.  He now apparently sees what I am saying and is going to try and provide clarity within the maps.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Teflon overcoat? Check.

Nomex shorts? Check.

Ear plugs? Check.

Standard kit when the United Church talks about this subject.

For the record, I shouted "get down" before the snipers opened up.

Anyone who takes a slug now is too slow.

And if nobody gets drilled.  I deserve a medal.

But I'll take cash.

I belive the flaw is in the poor quality of reproduction used in the web version of the report. While you make a valid point, the third map says "Isralei/Occupied Land" not "Israeli Occupied Land". The difference is the use of the forward slash, which is not readily visible in the web version of the report because of the poor quality of the reproduction. A third coloiur would make it much clearer. But that is the church. Good. Fast. Cheap. Choose any two.

I appreciate the warning to keep low and moving. Good tactical advice.

The map on Page 3 doesn't actually say that the white parts of the map are "Israel occupied land." It actually identifies the white as "Israeli/occupied land." There's a difference between the two.

Your formulation would imply that all the white areas of the map are "occupied" by Israel. The document is actually saying that the white areas of the map are either "Israeli" or "Occupied." It would be similar to a map of Canada that had Quebec in blue and the rest of the country in white, with blue identifed as "Quebec" and white identifed as "the rest of Canada." It's accurate, but fails to note the division of the white areas into 9 provinces and 3 territories.

So I'm not sure that the map is wrong. Your statement that "the third graphic, because of some buffoonery, has now deemed that all territory which we happily gave to Israel in the UN 1947 plan and the 1949 to 1967 maps is territory which Israel ilegally (sic) occupies" is, in fact, wrong. The slash is actually rather important, in that it means that the third graphic notes that the white  areas of the map are either "Israeli" or "occupied." Whether buffoonery was involved in this I don't know. There are certainly buffoons in the United Church (I'm sure there are more than a few who would count me among them!) but whether any of them worked on this report I can't say.

You are correct, though, that to distinguish between legitimate Israeli territory and occupied territory would be helpful, although difficult, since not all parties in the dispute would even be able to agree on that. There is some logic, therefore, in identifying with specifics only that land which is undisputably Palestinian (although, as settlement goes on, even that is perhaps fluid.) You're also right in suggesting that Recommendations 7a and 7b are almost impossible to effectively implement unless we know how WE distinguish between Israel and territory occupied by Israel.

Is the UCC asking me to boycott Israeli products?, answer is no.

i wonder how much land is considered as the Israel 'occupying' and how much the grandfathers bought from the grandfathers of palenstinians in which the grandchildren are disputing over (that sort of thing), and how much land it 'occupys' due to the defensive strategic position it must take as they were attacked and some of those who attacked and some leaders of the world(?), declare that Israel will be destroyed and some openly express their hatred and desire to kill them. i think until those circumstances are reconized as 'fanning the flames' we are kidding ourselves.


Israel could 'unoccupy' areas, i dont think they are going to bve stupid or naive about it or set themselves up to go into a war in which many suffer, military, civilian on all sides , effecting many around the world.


its a delicate issue, those who may rush in with some ultra-liberal platica fantastica solution may consider how deliecate the matter is and maybe the ww3 a issue.


further causing problems, and maybe even desperation in the Israeli people , by boycotting their products in hopes to effect their economy is nonsense, mayb ethe UCC cant understand that Israel is a religeous oriented society in which it is held in great regard and they may not look at their activity in their promised land as 'occupying'.


maybe the UCC could consider much to do in their backyard.

you want to help the palestinians plight? so help them. do we not have faith? the UCC is a national Church, many resources, what is the UCC doing to help the palenstianins in whom they express so much concern? i mean 'actual ' help, not boycotting "Jewsih' products as if thats something new to them, i think their economy is quite well experienced dealing with groups who boycotts them as a group.

why does division and the UCC seem to be,in some ways, often walking hand in hand?

does the UCC not have $20 million to actually make some difference with some 'boots on the ground'? (based out of Egypt?)


btw, what is the Arab union doing for the issue of Palestinains in the Middle East.


boycotting too?


anyone with some ideas to help in a manner that will bring results to the needs today?


seriously, what can we do, what are the needs of the palestinians??


i suggest medicine


what else?
_------------------------------------

11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she[b] considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.

22 By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions concerning the burial of his bones.
23 By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.
29 By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.
31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[d]
32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.

39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
(Hebrews 11:11-29)

here is some suggestions, i believe i may possibly be going to greenland in August to participate in such a endevour, how about we share the message of Christ with the palestinians in regards to Love for your enemy (and much more)?


look into this interesting group, They apparently will set up a transmission tower in neghbouring areas they are not aloowed into and then fly over the area and drop solor powered radios.


they do much.


check them out, i think they have ways of promoting what they do in ones Church if one desires.



http://www.galcom.org/

And so it begins...

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/01/united-church-reputation-hurt-by-report-calling-for-israel-boycott-critic-says/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/01/jonathan-kay-a-new-united-church-report-shows-how-israel-haters-have-lost-the-argument/

yup, the news tribes are at it already

how long do you think before another Young Turk comes here to WC and starts chastizing for it's 'anti-semitic' stance?

and so it goes...

Denounced by B'nai Brith Canada...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46395

Hi StephenBoothoot

No.  

The United Church of Canada is not asking you to boycott Isreali products.  

The Report of The Working Committee On Israel/Palestine Policy provides background  material and makes proposals for Commissioners to General Council to consider.

People who are not members of The United Church of Canada would not know that and their ingnorance of our process and procedure is shared by many who are members of The United Church of Canada.

The report proposes that The United Church of Canada consider a limited economic action (boycott) against Isreali products produced on settlements in the Palestinian territories which Isreal has occupied since the 1967 Six Day War.

At General Council 41 Commissioners will be asked to weigh each of the proposals to determine what if any action will be taken on them.  Only once the Commissioners have weighed in on the proposals (and they are allowed to alter them or reject them) will anyone be in a position to say, "The United Church of Canada says . . ." without betraying their ignorance about what The United Church of Canada actually says.

And even later in August, when the General Council sits to deliberate it will only speak for and to members of The United Church of Canada.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I would argue that it's even debatable as to whether the General Council speaks "for" members of the United Church of Canada. The general Council speaks for the General Council. Members of the United Church have the right to dissent.

I had hoped for a more robust call for pressure on Israel to stop the expansion of the illegal settlements and negotiate with Palestinian leaders for peace. This is a very conservative and reasonable document, without much change from the position statements made previously, isn't it? Specifically, I would urge people to consider the human rights violations in occupied Palestine, and the violations of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, to be equivalent to S. African apartheid, and to warrant international boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. However, as a UCC member, I would vote to approve the proposals.

oh you progressive protestants, not willing to Submit to Authority...;3

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

Whether we agree with General Council or not it speaks "for" the members of The United Church of Canada.  At best we can say, I don't agree with that or my congregation doesn't agree with that.  None of us as indiviudals can say, The Church does not agree with that.

Whether the Church speaks with authority "for" the members of The United Church of Canada or any other lower court is also debateable as time and time it is shown that controversial decisions made at the level of General Council may not gain the desired traction among individuals or lower courts.

As individuals sure.  As The Church not.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I actually don't agree with you at all, John. I've perused the powers of the General Council in The Manual and I see no reference to the General Council speaking "for" the members of the United Church. It speaks for itself as the highest court of the institution; therefore at most it may speak for the institution. It does not speak for the members. 

Hi arachne,

This document represents background material and it is and isn't a departure from previous statements.

It is a departure in that it is seeking to limit the scope of economic action to products made in the occupied territory.  Earlier calls for economic action have called for a much broader scope by targetting all products made by Israel.  So it is a half measure.  As a half-measure it will be rejected by the polarities in the discussion as for some it is a half too short and for others it is a half too much.

It is not a departure in that it targets only half of the conflicting parties to economic action.  It denounces all violence and agression yet only targets one combatant.  In essence it punishes one violent actor in the drama and ignores the other.  This is also a half measure and for some it is too much by half and others it is not enough by half.

It is a departure in that some of the excessive and inflammatory language of previous proposals has deliberately been avoided.

It is not a departure in the fact that we make what to our social justice trained ears sound like sensible social justice statements which fall like lead balloons on the ears of people who have been trained in a different sensibility.  The deepest meaning of the Holocaust was the denial of human dignity?  Is that all genocide is these days?  Talk about incredibly crass and shallow sentimentality.  That is an unbelievably thick statement.  Denser still was the working assumption that the Jews would concur with the statement.

At best it is the door opening on another several months of outrage and ignorant statements both by us and about us.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn, I think it could be argued that the violence by the Palestinian side is defensive since it is their land has been invaded and the Palestinian violence isn't state-sponsored (they don't even have a state, right?) but 'non-official'. It makes sense then that the United Church isn't calling for a boycott of Palestine too. The violence inacted on them is also disporportionaly to what they receive at the hands of the Israelis (with American support).

Hi Mahakala,

Typically that is the case that is made.  Apparently dead Isreali children mean nothing while dead Palestinian children mean something.

This gets to the ever mature, "they started it/did not" kind of bickering we find in many homes with young children and school yards.

If it is a crime to use violence, then it is a crime to use violence. 

This is where things get historically difficult.  The reason for that is the notorious "Says who?" arguments  Palestine says it is their land and Israel says it is theirs and to prove both points both dig through centuries of history.

Most recently (well as recently as 1967) Isreal was attacked and claims that they occupy the land for defensive purposes.

I would think that if Palestine is claiming they have been invaded they need to note that it is payback for the Arab-Isreali War.

It is not a cut and dried deal.  As soon as one points to one side and says, "what they have done is justified as self defence" it becomes hypocritical to point at the other and say, "only you are the agressor and all violence directed at  you is legitimate and right.

Not if we are serious about the violence being a problem.  Who do you think supplies Palestine with weapons, they aren't making them themselves.  If we do not boycott Palestine then we need to boycott their arms suppliers.

Violence is violence.  Whether it is a little or a lot.  It needs to stop.  Telling that to only one party in a conflict is spitting in the wind. 

Grace and peace to you.

John

[quote=revjohn]

If it is a crime to use violence, then it is a crime to use violence. 

[/quote=revjohn]

Is self-defense violence though? There is violence, then there is disporportional violence.

[quote=revjohn]

Violence is violence.  Whether it is a little or a lot.  It needs to stop.  Telling that to only one party in a conflict is spitting in the wind. 

[/quote=revjohn]

The United Church is telling both sides to stop the violence, but the boycott (limited) is about the occupation, which the report determines is the cause of the violence. The world courts recognize Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, not the other way around.

Thanks DKS for the lilnks.

I haven't read the full report but my first thought would be to delete the call for any form of boycott. It's not a practical solution and makes the UCC look silly and naive. My second thought would be to delete the call to designate Israel as a Jewish state, or the homeland of the Jewish people. I have never understood this claim given the fact that 2000 years ago there were non Jewish peoples living in what is today Israel/Palestine. Should Israel's existence be recognized by the Palestinians...definitely but not as a Jewish state. The remaining recommendations as summarized at the head of this post, I would support. I hope General Council will vote in favour of these recommendations in August but I have my doubts as they have shown in the past little desire to push back against Jewish lobbies like B'nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Hi Mahakala,

If I spill blood does it become unspilled if I claim self-defence?  Nope.  That is simply me justifying the blood I spill.

Granted there is a disproportional amount of violence.

What are the acceptable levels, we should pass that along.

Is the violence contained only to the settlements?  I mean if the neighbour from next door kicks my dog I don't drive across town to kick a strangers dog.

I understand what the world courts have ruled.

If it were only as simple as a dispute between two neighbours.  It should be.  It never, ever has been.

There are moderate factions in both Israel and Palestine.  There are also militant factions.  The only peace that either appear willing to give is the peace of the grave and that just isn't an attractive offer.

If there is a way out.  Smarter minds than mine haven't found it.  Pretending this is simply an Israel and Palestine problem is missing out on some reality we don't see easily from half way around the world.

Grace and peace to you.

John

There is a way, and one that has occurred elsewhere; all involved have to accept they are equally right and wrong.

God doesn't start wars. That's the greatest load of nonsense. Mankind starts wars. But then we bless armies to go and kill in God's name. Somebody's got to blow that myth out of the water.
     Betty Williams, Irish Peace Activist and Nobel Peace Laureate

Internal opposition to United Church report being raised:

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/07/united-church-pastor-breaks-ranks-on-israel-denounces-radical-agenda/

All involved have to admit that violence is not the solution. Then talks about a solution can start. What does a cease-fire mean when the elected representing body of one side has one of the best staffed and equipped armies of the world at its disposal; and the other side's elected government (eg. Hamas in Gaza) does not have a lot of resources for policing or security to turn to, yet even when an obvious effort is made (ceasefire before Gaza invasion/demolition), Hamas was assumed to be responsible for every launch of a rocket from Gaza, and then a very powerful, targeted shell was returned by the Israeli military. Is this really equally right and wrong, or is the message of  justice for the oppressed getting missed?

I don't think the position statement is a mistake. I think it is the best that can be expected under the circumstances; but saying the oppressor is equally wrong as the oppressed is not Christian, and not just. Wrong has been done on both sides, but only one side is violently demolishing farm buildings of Palestinians, appropriating lands, and arresting those who resist. I agree with the majority of Palestinians who believe that violence solves nothing, and only plays into the hands of the Israeli Government. I urge you to find out more about what life is like in Palestine from independent observers.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/13728f1408f96c55

arachne,

is that your pet spidron?

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/41940

From today's National Post:

United Church defends a controversial report on the Middle East

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/15/counterpoint-united-church-defends-a-controversial-report-on-the-middle-east/

By David Giuliano

The United Church Working Group’s report on Israel/Palestine policy has raised significant debate and some misunderstanding — including in this newspaper (“Church to vote on Israel boycott,” National Post news story, May 2; and “How the Israel-haters lost,” National Post editorial, May 2).

As chair of the working group, I recognize that there are many strong opinions related to the issues addressed in our report. Over the past two years we met with countless Canadians, Israelis and Palestinians, all of whom are passionate about the views they hold.

Dignity for all the people of the region is a core theme for the policy directions in the report. It is also what has led to a significant and regrettable misunderstanding.

The concept of dignity, as used by the working group, goes to the heart of our understanding of human identity as people cherished, loved and called by God, and who have an innate right to respect and justice.

The report’s focus on dignity challenges what is referred to as the “new” anti-semitism, which seeks to undermine and delegitimize the State of Israel. It also informs the report’s advice that applying the language of apartheid to Israel should be avoided.

Dignity is the cornerstone of the United Church’s continued affirmation of Israel as a Jewish state, which the report understands as “a homeland for Jewish people, and a democratic state that ensures complete equality of social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or gender.”

Dignity is also the principle behind our critique of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. To be very clear, the report does not recommend a boycott of Israel.

The call to respect the dignity of both peoples is also found in the section of the report that upholds the Palestinian Right of Return as an internationally recognized human right that needs to be resolved through negotiation in such a way that protects the demographic integrity of Israel.

The report takes seriously the threats that have been part of Israel’s reality from the beginning; the history of war, suicide bombings, the present acts of violence such as rockets fired from Gaza, the loss of Israeli life, and the stated desire of a number of nearby regimes to eliminate the State of Israel altogether.

The report makes a clear distinction between Israel and the Israeli settlements. It also takes seriously that there is a military occupation, the longest such occupation in living memory. It is an occupation that the working group and many others in the United Church and beyond have seen first-hand and know to be harsh and oppressive.

It is here that the call to respect the dignity of Palestinians becomes central. To demonize Palestinians is wrong. To suggest that the occupation is the Palestinians’ fault is unjust. To dismiss as merely “unfortunate” their stories and suffering, the loss of life and land, inadequate supplies of water, the destruction of olive groves, the demolition of houses, the separation of families, and much more is a profound assault on human dignity.

To claim that Palestinians are a manufactured people with no claim to the land is false. To do so flies in the face of international law and the national policies of many countries, including Canada, which clearly state the reality of the occupation and the illegality of the settlements.

In other words, the report takes seriously what is undisputed by most countries in the world — that there is an occupation, that the Green Line does exist, and that the settlements are violations of international law. Because of these realities, the report recommends economic action against settlement products.

The working group is very concerned to see its focus on human dignity interpreted, as it has been by some, as a diminishment of the profound atrocity of the Holocaust. We recognize that the wording used in this section of our report has led to misunderstanding our intent, and we deeply regret that. The report will be edited to address this concern and to ensure that this misunderstanding does not detract from the report’s recommendations. This revision, and any other editorial corrections that may be needed, will be made before the report is submitted to our governing body, the General Council, for decision in August. The complete text of the working group’s report is available at Gc41.ca/background-material.

National Post

The Very Rev. David Giuliano is immediate past moderator of The United Church of Canada.

The "Palestinians" are a manufactured people made up of different tribes and without a state of their own and happening to live in one of the many Palestinian 'concentraton camps' in the ME...

The Israelis are a manufactured people with a much older identity with a state of their own...

It all comes down to fighting over bits of dirt and meat and the different meanings different groups give them...

InannaWhimsey--This avatar is me projected onto the internet, and is the image of the finished knitting project that I am working on--I hope my red kneed tarantula looks as good as this one does!

We should be targeting the products and proceeds of settlements because they are illegal according to international law (Geneva Conventions). Moving settlers into land occupied in war and displacing natives, while appropriating natural resources such as water and minerals are both violations. So is punishing groups for the criminal actions of individuals. Demolitions of Palestinian farm buildings, homes, and rain collection cisterns to make way for settlement expansion, as well as denial of groundwater to Palestinians, are reasons to target settlements as the most unjust features of Israeli occupation.

If we only look at disputes between world powers and third world countries and say: "They're both equally at fault", we're not being just. After all, the Zealots killed Roman Centurions, but Judea wasn't equally matched against the Roman Empire; although Jesus showed a completely different way.  Likewise, there won't be a Palestine, or Palestinians, except for the worst land, and refugee camps abroad, if pressure isn't put on Israel. Palestinians already have the pressure, and have chosen non-violent action, as we saw on Nakba Day demonstrations and hunger strikes. I disagree with the report in one aspect: that dignity for Israel requires avoiding the term "apartheid" for their right-wing government's policies. Internationally we can choose boycotts, divestments and sanctions, as non-violent strategies that worked against South Africa's apartheid.

In my post of May 2 I spoke out against the boycott, calling such action "silly and naive." After further study and reflexion I wish to withdraw that statement and now find myself in full support of the boycott proposed by the Working Group.

I find it odd the Church is thinking of vengeful ways rather than healing ways to bring peace.   This kind of action has never worked to bring lasting good, or peace.

Is it the Church of Christ's work to follow, or be complicit, in other's need/call to take this sort of action?    To me it opposes the message of peace to add more trouble than is already happening.  Who in the Church buys the products of the Settlements?  The Jewish community here might...are we after them?

We follow the Christ of peaceful solutions, not taking up the 'sword' which Jesus clearly said 'no' to.  Are we going to be a church of vengeance now?  What happenes to the claim of peace and just actions we would like to be part of if we deliberately act in such a way?   

We, as the United Church of Canada, have wounded far too many in past actions of complicity, and are still deeply entrenched in that workiing out. 

Have we not learned by now the call of God in Jesus is to not follow tempting worldy ways, but to follow the ways of Jesus to offer healing and trust in God.   Perhaps our need for solutions to age old problems needs to settle into trusting in God's timing, not our human timing.

I will hope to hear the United Church of Canada has followed our own faith call to just and merciful ways of being Christ in the world, rather than giving in to comply with impatient vengeful action.  Trust in God's ways, not worldly ways.

Surely, depth of spiritualty at General Council can bring us to more creative ways in this matter.   Anger is deadly...a break in relationship with the Creator's Love.  It takes more strength to stand up for peace than it does to take on the broken ways of judgement and punitive action.

In what way is a boycott "taking up a sword"? It is simply expressing a choice based on a certain set of principles. In an economic system based on buying and selling, it is simply an expression of that choice.

Spirit wind, have you never heard of the boycotts of South Africa that forced that country to abandon its racist policies?

If you want a boycott that is really a sword, I suggest you look at the sanctions on Iran. Those are designed to impose suffering, real suffering,  on the whole, Iranian people.

Boycott may seem to be a peaceful rreaction to what seems to be an unfair situation, but boycott is a gentler term for embargo.  Look up the words in the dictionary and understand the meanings and actions behind both throughout history. 

A boycott is a passive agressive embargo.

Economic sanctions are economic sanctions.

Boycott is a result of public or private meaning not government (non-state) initiatives.
Embargo is a result of the government and is a state initiative.

boycott is simply the re-name all understand reing of embargo. Surely,  we all understand re-naming and branding. 

Sorry, my posting was not as I wrote.

I intended:  Boycotting is related to embargo.  Without doubt.  It matters not who is in power and who exerts power.  It matters that power is involved.  And frankly, history speaks and we need to hear the stories, from all sides, and if we listen carefully, there would be more consideration around this proposed embargo.l

And the defintions posted above are not those of the Okford dictionary.  I urge everyone to look them up and understand them.

I see redhead's point. Even giving advice is a form of power - and power is bad. That's why I have never forgiven the allies for what they did to the Germans from 1939-1945.

In fact, stop signs are a form or power, as are speed limits. there is a giant task ahead of u.

Ralph Milton told a wonderful story about a youth workshop that included a group of Mennonite youth, and the topic of stewardship came up.  These youth were having an intense discussion and Ralph joined them.  When he asked if they were discussing tithing, their response was no, the first 10% was a given.  They were discussing how they used the rest of their money.   Redhead, the discussion coming to General Council relates to how the way we use our money individually supports or undermines the work of creating God's empire on earth.  It is not about punishing anyone or seeking vengeance.  It is about being aware of how the way we spend our money can contribute to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and the exploitation of the Palestinians, or our refusal to support that occupation and exploitation.  Just as the users of illegal drugs in Canada and the US are supporting the murder of thousands of Mexicans and others in other countries, we can support a variety of criminal and immoral activities by our choice to buy things regardless of the costs involved in providing those things.

If we choose not to purchase some products because we do not want to support particular criminal activities, which are what are being conducted by some Israeli companies, then that should be our choice.  If we choose to make others aware of those criminal activities and how individuals may deliberately choose not to support those activities, then that should also be our choice.  We are not about causing harm to anyone, just wanting to stop helping criminals conduct their business.  If you see that as vengeance, then I believe you have an exceptionally broad defintion for the word.

Good to see Redhed back, and To see her butting jeads with Graham on the middle east. Welcome back Red. Is your profile uptodate, anynews on your health since you wrote it?

The boycott movement appears to be gaining momentum. Both the Presbyterian Church US and the United Methodist Church US have voted in favor of the boycott of goods produced in occupied territory. About a week ago the PCUS voted 71% in favor of the boycott but voted against divestment in Caterpillar, Hewlett Packard and Motorola Solutions, companies that profit from the Israeli occupation. The vote however was extremely close, 333-331 against divestment. 

Also Michael Zigmond and Naftali Kaminski have co-authored a recent report which was posted July 12, 2012, and which appeared in the Huff Post. Both I believe are Jewish and both support the boycott movement. It's so refreshing to hear fresh new ideas from Jewish people of influence who understand that the boycott movement is about justice and human rights; it's not about anti-semitism. Contrast that with the archaic arguments we hear from the likes of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

I know this is a shot in the dark but I am going to give it a try anyway. I am trying to ascertain the level of interest at the grass roots level for the recommendations of our Working Group, including the boycott. There are 85 presbyteries in the UCC and I am wondering how many have discussed the boycott and voted on it? I know Halton Presbytery, one of six in Hamilton Conference, has voted in favor but I am wondering about the others? A yea, nay or no interest would be helpful.

Easydoesit,

I would suggest that few presbyteries, unless there is a group within the presbytery pushing the issue, would take the time to discuss something that is none of their business.  The report was going to GC41.  why would a Presbytery talk about it?

I also suggest that the majority of people in the UCCan are far less interested in this discussion (or most discussions that will happen at GC41) than one would like to believe.

Now I also believe an argument can be made (not sure if it convinces me but it can -and is being- be made) that this is none of General Council's business either.  AS one posting I saw somewhere put it "why do we think we are important enought to meddle in the affairs of another country"  I might add particularly when we do such a bad job of meddling in/advocating for issues in our own country.