redhead
Boycott and Activism
Posted on: 08/04/2012 13:14
Dear all,
I have been away for along time here in WC. But I have kept abreast of international affairs and also UCC activity (I do read the Observer, monthly) Now that i am back online, I am sad to see the same arguments and the unwillingness to see other perpsectives with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
What people need to understand that this situation, HISOTRICALLY, was a forced kind of colonisation. That Israel the POLITICALLY created state of Israel was NOT the colloctive desire of modern Jews (in the historical sense of the term modern) and that Jews and non-Jews were placed in a political and geographical regional hot-spot post WWII, when surviviors were not welcome back to their own countries.
Briefly, and to do injustice herein to this post by not listing many historical facts for the sake of brevity, Many Jews would never have chosen to return to the geographic region, under the movement of Zionism, named the State of Israel in 1948 by the League of Nations (and the Powers that "won" WWII). This history started under Britisih politicians/government back in the 1920s, and objectively can in no way be attributed to pwerful Jewish lobbiests, because European Jewry did not have power. (Look it up) *Also note, British government prior to and after the creation of the political state of Israel remained pro-Arab - again, please do some research on this issue. Think about OIL.
A common theme running through threads aroud the current Palestinian-Israeli situation is the issue of oppression. And then it seems as outsiders, without acknowleding the history, we feel comfortable in issuing boycotts and making judgments, without all of the facts. What happens when others settle in regions that are not of their origin? How was Canada built? The Canada that is "westernized" by colonization? How did original settlers, and so many generations thereafter, treat the Indigenous peoples? And today, if other countries really examined Canada's history with regard to treating First Nations peoples, and other countries decided to boycott, could colonist Canadians object? Especially if the same colonist Canadians were actively involved in the boycott of other countries for the very same reasons?
Would not it be better for us to deal with major issues of oppression and discrimination here, in our own country, before entering into what is none of our business overseas? It is easier to address issues of colonization (forced or not) overseas than to look at what we did in our own backyard. Or, should I say, the backyards and homes of the First Nations Peoples who, to this day, will never regain their rights to land and lifestyle that colonists and traders ripped away, throughout centuries.
We need to think, and to understand history well, for history can guide, or we can take an old, relatively easy position such as boycott (and ignor lessons of history), and continue an old game, with a sense of moral superiority superimposed.
Think about it: do we have more work to do here, in every province, to cultivate healing and to pay retribution to what was done to First Nations people, or is it just easier to ignore that uncomfortable feeling, that nagging of conscience if you thinking about it, and try to throw a bit of money here and there to other countries, and to then feel good about the giving of a donation?
Search
Recently Active...
Comments
InannaWhimsey
Posted on: 08/04/2012 15:50
Huzzah!
Good riff :3
When I don't get too 'into' WC (those moments when I start taking the WC BS too literally), I look at WC (and heck, the world) as a smorgasboard of different offerings...MikePaterson and his swimming and protection of the Earth...chansen and his protecting of people from 'religion'...graeme and his particular issues...EasternOrthodox and the economy...Jobam and his GLBTQetcetc bailiwick...the list goes on and on
and so much to choose from, to go 'this is what I want to do, to spend my efforts on'...
So I heartily encourage everyone to do that and to avoid trying to please or be everyone and everything...
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 08/04/2012 19:07
I'm with you. But I can't stand arguing with Graeme so I don't post much here anymore.
.
I received zero comments in the two items I repost below. It's a little disjointed. My arm is still bothering me. Also, I am working from an iPad so I don't have access to formatting tools. Must type in the HTML for bold, italics, etc.
.
I'm not suggesting UCC take up the Nagorny-Karabakh issue. The world is full of worthy problems. But this one is so very analogous and yet never spoken on.
.
It's not my church anymore but if it were, I'd be in favour of staying out of foreign politics.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 08/04/2012 18:56
Let me repost on the gross hypocrisy of focusing ONLY on Israel. This ended up in an off-topic area. I've never received any answers...
-----------------------------
.
It's not our church anymore, so it's not our business and I accept that.
.
But I do have a couple of notes, sorry if typing is bad, arm sore, using caps for italics, sorry.
.
Mely may have been referring to WCC's cave -in to Soviet Russia. The Soviet-approved Orthodox Church in Russia (and there was also an Orthdox Church outside Russia, ROCOR), was stuffed with KGB agents. They joined WCC to have a voice. In one famous case, a criticism of lack of freedom of worship in the Soviet Union was removed DUE TO THEIR WISHES. Getting along was the goal. Score one for the USSR. (The ROCOR has finally rejoined the Russian church, the KGB appointees have mostly died off).
.
The obsession with the Israeli/Palestine cause, when it is YOUR ONLY FOREIGN AFFAIRS TOPIC ON THE AGENDA, seems odd. I have often brought up the Nagorny-Karabakh problem, which has many similarities to Is/Pal. Hundreds of thousands of refugees, Nagorny-Karabakh completely ethnically cleansed of its Azeri citizens and the land annexed by Armenia, plus Armenia is occupying a buffer zone of not insignificant size (residents also chased out, the land is empty). But not an issue for you.
.
Could it be that the Armenian church belongs to WCC ? (I don't know). And it's still a case of "getting along"?
.
I know from reading about Orthodoxy that it has much anti-Semitism left in it -- far, far more than liberal Protestants. (The Orthdox church in America, which I attend, is not as bad). So although I do not condemn UCC of being anti-Semitic at all, those Orthdox churches in Palestine are (and have been for centuries). I suspect you might be being influenced by those Eastern churches.
.
Sorry for bad typing and formatting.
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 08/04/2012 18:57
When no one answered, I reminded them again!
--------------------------------
.
If that is true Alex, then we would logically help Israel. I don't think that is coming into play at present but I would be interested in other's views. It certainly played a role in the creation of Israel, as I note below.
.
It is partly because the news also obsesses over it. This keeps the spotlight on it and we instinctively think, this must be REALLY one of the worst things on the planet.
.
The Azerbaijani's are particularly ill-placed to get their message out.
.
There are, of course, Jews living in the West. And at the time Israel was created (1948) there was a definite tilt toward Israel in foreign policy. It began to change as the Palestinians found their voice. Also, they (the Palestinians) are strongly supported by most Muslim countries. As the number of Muslim residents in the West increased, the issue started to become very divisive. At any university campus, there are supporters of either side, with pretty bad relations.
.
Now consider Nagorny-Karabakh. There are plenty of Armenians living in the West. Indeed, the Armenians suffered their own Holocaust in WW I, at the hands of the Turks.
.
The Azeri's speak a language related to Turkish but played no role in the WW I disaster.
.
A good fraction of these Western Armenians strongly support Armenia against Azerbaijan.
.
However, the Azeri diaspora is very small in the West. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan were part of the Soviet Union, so there was no opportunity to leave until recently (a lot of the Armenians left in WW I to escape the Turks).
.
So there is no one in the West who is terribly concerned with Azerbaijan, indeed a lot of people don't even know where it is.
.
Logically you would expect the Muslims to support them. But they aren't. A lot of Muslims in the West are of Arabic descent, so naturally their prime concern is Arab Palestine.
.
The Azeri's feel rather ticked off. They are so angry they have broken the taboo on dealing with Israel.
.
To return to the news media, there are two reasons they focus on Is/Pal I believe:
.
- they are responding to general interests of their readers. Their readers aren't interested in Azerbaijan.
.
- reporters covering Is/Pal can stay in nice hotels in Israel while they visit the area. Azerbaijan is much poorer and not well-stocked with fancy hotels.
-----------
Note: to find out more, google "Nagorno-Karabakh". The war took place after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's. A good book on it (there aren't many) is "Black Garden" by Thomas de Waal.
.
"Nagorny" is Russian for "mountainous". "Karabakh" is Turkish, meaning "black garden", an allusion to its fertile crop land.
.
Still waiting
EasternOrthodox
Posted on: 08/04/2012 19:18
If you come in this thread Graeme, I won't argue with you.
.
You didn't even look at that link I posted. It's not from the Murdoch-owned Times (London, England), it's from The New York Times.
.
You don't even read the damned links that other people post, FFS!
graeme
Posted on: 08/05/2012 10:56
To EO
Shrink not from me, my precious rose.
You make me tingle head to toes.
Write more to me in accents deep
It drives me, happily, to sleep.
Israel was not forced on helpless Jews. Jewish terrorist gangs (You've heard of the Stern Gang, for example?) were operating in Palestine - then a British protectorate- before and after World War two - killing both British and Palestinians. You've heard of the bombing of the King David Hotel? You've heard of how most of the early leaders of Israel were terrorists?
Far from being pushed into Palestine, European Jews were forbidden to enter (by the British) and forced their way in.
The UN decision simply recognized a fait accompli.
They had no right of any sort to displace people and take their land. They were NOT descedants of the Sephardic Jews who had lived there for millenia (and in peace with their Moslem neighbours).
As for aggression, they happily joined the British and the French in an invasion of Egypt (so the Brits could take back the Suez Canal). And the US was NOT always pro-Israel. President Eisenhower was publicly furious at them.
And you've heard of the Israeli attacks on the USS Liberty that killed 43 Americans?
As for why we should now concentrate on the Israeli problem rather than our native peoples, our native peoples do not have nuclear weapons and are not threatening an attack on Iran that could take us into a world, nuclear war. We're kind of pressed for time, here. It's not fair, I know. but it's real.
Jim Kenney
Posted on: 08/06/2012 19:41
From what I have been told, the report was not the response to a group of UCC people looking for a cause. It was the response to a request from one of our international partners, a council of Christians in Israel. They identified the exploitation of Palestinians in the West Bank as an important issue and asked all of their international partnes for support. The UCC working group investigated the situation carefully before coming up with their report.