Canada's Largest Union Votes to Boycott Israel

[Black Dog]

Germany has a similar clause in its constitution. Anyone of German origin (and there are many living in Eastern Europe) has the right to become a German citizen. Japanese laws are very ethnocentric and it's all but impossible for a non-ethnic Japanese to become a citizen. In the world, American society is the exception not the norm. The world tends to view America as a mongrel.

Those policies you cite are based on nationality, not a nebulous concept of ethnicity.

There are many Muslim Israeli citizens and they are Islamic parties in the Knesset. I am unaware of any Jewish Party in any parliament in any Arab country. In Saudi Arabia, it is strictly forbidden to show any non-Islamic religious symbol. (That means you cannot wear a crucifix around your neck in a public place.)

And what bearing does any of that have on Israel's policies? The only explanation would be that you feel two wrongs, in fact, make a right.

I also note that the prescence of Arab parties (which were forbidden until the '80s) in the Knesset are oft-cited as proof of Israel's pluralistic and egalitarin sociaty. The reality is much different.

Worlds apart.

BD, that has got to be the weirdest post you have ever made.

I can't speak for others but my support for Israel stems from one simple fact: Israel is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. The kinds of discussions we have on this forum simply don't occur in any Arab country, with the possible exception of Lebanon. I suspect you would feel perfectly at ease in a Tel Aviv cafe and you would find plenty of people who would agree with you or disagree. In Amman, Damascus or Cairo, you would not express yourself the same way.

I imagine if I was an Arab, though, I'd probably feel a little differently. Anyway, my post earlier was essentially a parody of Argus's post which preceded it. I stand by the South Africa comparison.

If the Left's antipathy toward Israel is based on its inability to live up to a liberal democracy ideal, then why in God's name does the Left defend teh Arab cause?

What is this "Arab cause" you speak of?

[scribblet]

Petition here to sign

http://www.bnaibrith.ca/CUPEPetition.php

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3257424,00.html

Anti-Defamation League Director Abe Foxman says in response to Canadian Union of Public Employees resolution to support international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel ‘once again, a labor union has voted to take the deplorable and offensive step of attempting to isolate and vilify the State of Israel while taking a strongly one-sided view of the conflict Ynetnews"

[Argus]

Resentment is the natural result of this contrast. Afterall, Israel has all of the geographic disadvantages of its neighbors and it doesn't have any oil fields. Yet it prospers, while others falter."

etc etc.

Uh...then why was the concept of Israel opposed by people in the region (including the majority of people actually living there) in 1947?

Bigotry and ignorance.

Isreal is a democratic, western oriented nation surrounded by vast numbers of anti-democratic, violent, fanatics who want to destroy them. Since the right sympathises with democracies and underdogs, we naturally gravitate towards supporting Israel.

Since the Left sympathises with people they perceive to be 'brown skinned" no matter what, they naturally gravitate towards the terrorists who want to murder all homosexuals, stone women and fornicators, and despise all other religions and racial groups.

I think the right wing fixaton with Israel is born of its twin fetishes for military power and religious zealotry.

Gee, if that were true, wouldn't the Right be fixated with arab countries then, at least as far as zealotry is concerned, but also, come to think of it, because Arab dictators love military parades, and love to use their military to murder people.

The left's antipathy toward Israel is based on the simple fact that it consistently fails to live up to the standards of a liberal democracy.

The Left, in its mindlessness, likes to set standards for people they themselves have no hope of living up to. I wonder just what a collection of leftists would be like after 60 years of being surrounded, attacked and terrorized by a group twenty times larger. I suspect they'd either have become a lot more hardened to the realities of life - or died.

And, btw the Palestinians and other Arab states consistently fail to meet standards of bare civilization, yet the Left is totally head over heels in love with them. I think if the Palestinians burned some homos and invited some left wing European and North American supporters over for a weiner roast you'd all cheerfully go without a peep of protest. After all, you wouldn't want to be culturally judgemental and presume your cultural views are superior to theirs, would you?

It's interesting: the parrallels with South Africa in the '70s and '80s are astonishing:

Astonishingly few, despite the tortured logic some attempt.

a privileged minority who's entitlement is based on their race

Based, you mean, on their accomplishments, on their sophistication, on their intelligence and education and efforts - not to mention citizenship.

implements inhumane policies to entrench their dominance

Tries to defend itself against endless terrorist attacks and mass armed assaults by its larger neighbours, you mean?

whle enjoying the knee-jerk support of the North American right due to its status as a bulwark against

The enemies of freedom.

[Argus]

I have to ask why a "Jewish state" is something worth preserving. I can think of no other liberal democratic state in the world that explicitly favours one ethno-religious group.

It kind of makes you think it isn't the liberal democracy Argus claims it is. That's why I continue to be baffled as to why the right is so enamored with it, and why they will call anyone anti-semitic who tries to bring it up.

Would it make you feel better if Israel were a brutal dictatorship like all the Arab and Muslim states? Would you stop bothering them then and find something more fashionable to protest?

[Argus]

As I've mentioned before, Jews and Palestinian Arabs are very closely genetically related. This is not a case of transplanted Europeans dominating put-upon locals of an entirely different genetic lineage. The Jews find their genetic ancestry springing from the area surrounding the Dead Sea.

First: the "whites/dark-skined" comment was a direct response to Argus's statement that the left reflexively sides with "brown-skinned people". I'm well aware of the racial similarities between semetic peoples.

However, a sizeable chunk of Israel's population are "transplanted Europeans", be they the first immigrants from post-Holocaust Europe or their descendents, or the large number of North American, Eastern European and Russian Jews that made up the bulk of immigration since Israel's founding.

Ahh, I see, so that's why you hate them.

Also, I haven't read one, one, single defense of apartheid on any conservative blog or other website in the five years that I've reading blogs. If such defenses exist they are certainly not held by main stream conservatives. For you to throw that line in as if it were a common conservative viewpoint at the end of your post is utter bs. And hypocritical, when you consider that the opposite scenario, say, the leftist defense of Castro's Cuba and the monstrous Che Guevera, is commonplace on lefty blogs.

Um, given that the end of apartheid predated the internet, I'm not surprised you don't see many defenses of it. But the act remains, conservatives in the '70s and '80s were staunch defenders of the apartheid regime.

And why not? I was among them. My feeling then was that the apartheid regimes were pro-west, and easily as respectful of human rights as anything likely to follow. The choice, as far as I was concerned, was between a white regime which brutalized its people and sided with the West, and a Black regime which brutalized its people and sided with the Communists. So far, South Africa has greatly suprised me. Mandela was, for a Communist, surprisingly capable and open to compromise,, and prevented South Africa from making the same journey every other Black African states made shortly after their first vote - into dictatorship and near chaos.

Zimbabwe, on the other hand, is just about exactly as I expected. The people of Zimbabwe were better off when it was called Rhodesia.

As for leftist defenses of communism, fair point, but that's certainly a far less widespread than right-wing apologies for Israel.

Israel is not our enemy.

[Black Dog]

Bigotry and ignorance.

And not the whole "land theft" thing. Whatever.

The Left, in its mindlessness, likes to set standards for people they themselves have no hope of living up to. I wonder just what a collection of leftists would be like after 60 years of being surrounded, attacked and terrorized by a group twenty times larger. I suspect they'd either have become a lot more hardened to the realities of life - or died.

I don't think not toturing people, not stealing land, and not basing society on some weird notion of divinely mandated ethnic entitlement are unrealistic standards for anyone to live by.

And, btw the Palestinians and other Arab states consistently fail to meet standards of bare civilization, yet the Left is totally head over heels in love with them. I think if the Palestinians burned some homos and invited some left wing European and North American supporters over for a weiner roast you'd all cheerfully go without a peep of protest. After all, you wouldn't want to be culturally judgemental and presume your cultural views are superior to theirs, would you?

Based, you mean, on their accomplishments, on their sophistication, on their intelligence and education and efforts - not to mention citizenship.

No: based on their religion (or their grandparents' religion etc.)

Tries to defend itself against endless terrorist attacks and mass armed assaults by its larger neighbours, you mean

Nope.

Ahh, I see, so that's why you hate them.

Why is that? Come on: say it. Or are you too much of a coward?

And why not? I was among them. My feeling then was that the apartheid regimes were pro-west, and easily as respectful of human rights as anything likely to follow. The choice, as far as I was concerned, was between a white regime which brutalized its people and sided with the West, and a Black regime which brutalized its people and sided with the Communists.

So is it the ideaology or the skin colour you hate?

So far, South Africa has greatly suprised me. Mandela was, for a Communist, surprisingly capable and open to compromise,, and prevented South Africa from making the same journey every other Black African states made shortly after their first vote - into dictatorship and near chaos.

Zimbabwe, on the other hand, is just about exactly as I expected. The people of Zimbabwe were better off when it was called Rhodesia

And I suppose in your view the circumstances of colonialism or the Cold War itself had nothing to do with the failures of postcolonial states?

[Riverwind]

And I suppose in your view the circumstances of colonialism or the Cold War itself had nothing to do with the failures of postcolonial states?

Colonialism and the cold war affected every country in the world, Some states succeeded, some states failed. If you want to understand why that happened you must look for differences between the successful states and the failed states. Blaming everything on colonial powers is a cop out that solves nothing.

[BHS]

BD:

Since you're getting slammed here, I'll throw you a bone. (I know, I know. But I'm seeing one BD post followed by five anti-BD replies, rinse, and repeat.)

I'll agree with you that Israel isn't a true liberal democracy. No country can call itself truly free when it restricts the rights of it's citizenry based on ethnicity, regardless of it's motivation to do so.

That being said, there remains the question of Western (read American) support for Israel, both economically and militarily.

Let's leave aside the existence of the Occupied Territories for a moment. Consider them a seperate country, as they would have been if Arafat had accepted Barak's offer in 2000. (Feel free to bicker at you leisure as to the level of autonomy that the Palestinians would have achieved by their agreement to this proposal - the fact remains that the 2000 offer was a good first step towards complete autonomy, and Arafat rejected it out of hand, preferring furious intifada impotency and the continued subjugation that it would necessarily entail.)

I think it's fair to say that of all of the countries in the ME Israel is still the freest, and still the one that treats it's citizens best regardless of their ethnicity. (Remember, this excludes the fact of the occupied lands.) I think that if you had to predict which ME nation was most likely to commit barbarism against it's own citizens, Israel would be at the bottom of the list. Of all of the nations in the ME that need reform, Israel is the most likely to do so and will have the easiest time of it. For all of these reasons, Israel deserves our support. It deserves at least the same support that the completely undemocratic nations in the region are routinely given regardless of their policies.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Since you're getting slammed here, I'll throw you a bone. (I know, I know. But I'm seeing one BD post followed by five anti-BD replies, rinse, and repeat.)

At least it's not me anymore.

[scribblet]

A great piece the NP today, by Israel's Ambassador. methinks CUPE has shot itself in the foot

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...0e-fa839ca2abd7

An invitation to CUPE

There seems to be a general consensus that the curious resolution adopted by the Ontario wing of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE-O) last weekend, calling for a boycott of Israel, was politically misguided and damaging to CUPE, inasmuch as it was based on factually inaccurate and misleading premises and questionable law and was unjustly one-sided and selective.

-snip-

If they wish to play a constructive role in advancing the peace process rather than a partisan and destructive one, then they might consider reconvening and nullifying their ill-advised and hostile boycott resolution and replacing it with a positive and forward-looking resolution inviting Palestinian, Israeli and public employee unions from other Arab countries (if such exist) to come to Canada and to learn from CUPE how to cope -- together -- with the challenges and vicissitudes of a dynamic labour movement.

As Israel's ambassador to Canada, I would be the first to convey any such positive resolution and invitation to Israel's public service union and to Israel's Histadrut National Labor Federation with a view to actively promoting such a joint meeting and seeking constructive and viable contacts between Canada's unions and those in Israel and in the Palestinian territories.

Just think of the benefits of such a prospect, with CUPE contributing in a positive and professionally substantive manner to building dialogue, mutual trust and labour unity and affinity between Israelis, Palestinians and other neighbours, and Canadians. This, rather than sowing hatred, disunity and false accusations that serve solely the partisan inclinations of the boycott initiators, would be constructive.

Is there anyone in the Ontario wing of CUPE or in its national leadership prepared to take up this challenge and regain some semblance of honour and bona fides for CUPE?

[Rue]

Whether boycotting is a passive act or not, if they are really interested in promoting peace, they should be boycotting both sides, not just "boycotting Israel".

I'm sure they haven't bought Palestinean products in years.

You missed the point. They have made a pronoucement suggesting one side is right the other is wrong. For CUPE to have been fair, they merely would have made a statement saying they abhor violence from either side of the debate. They chose instead to take sides.

[Rue]

Interesting. Boycotts and divestment played a big role in ending South Africa's apartheid policies in the '80s (policies which were also justified on the grounds of demographics), but these days it seems more of a symbolic gesture. Sadly, it' sonly a matter of time before we start hearing of CUPE's "anti-semetism"?

Your comments are interesting. You have equated Israel's right to exist in peace as being the equivalent of apartheid and therefore worthy of the same treatment. That in a nut shell shows where your head is at. I am sure you were in complete agreement with the UN when they rendered a declaration equating Zionism with Racism.

Your other comment that "sadly it is only amatter of time before we start hearing of CUPE's anti-semetism" also manifests your personal bias and lack of understanding of what it means when you are a Jew and try to live in a multi-ethnic society but people like you, seem to think Jews should not feel insecure when they see and hear such developments.

I doubt given your perspective that the right for Jews to have a country is apartheid-could ever begin to understand the emotional links between all Jews (even those who do not believe in the State of Israel or identify with Israelis)

from a theological perspective and the nation of Israel.

If I may say so sadly, people like you will never attempt to understand the meaning of the State of Israel to the Jewish faith. You will simply label it as apartheid in need of a boycott.

[Rue]

Isreal has been a terrorist stae towards Palestine for many years now. They attack and kill with impunity and the world bodies have done little to stop it. If a public union can start a small but growing sentiment showing Isreal for what it really is, then I have no problems with it. I only wish Canada as a country would also come out and cry foul when events by Isreal happen. Enough of the sympathy for the holocast. Now it is Isreal who is the offender and they are being worse then Hitler about it. Just as Hitler should havebeen stopped much earlier then he was, so should Isreal.

BLACK DOG PLEASE READ THE ABOVE.

Sadly Black Dog, this is precisely the kind of anti-semetic response that is incited when CUPE makes the pronouncements it did.

Can you see how this writer switches from an alleged debate about Israel to making a disparaging comment about the holocaust which is in fact an attack against all Jews. Can you see the concern Jews have when people like the above

bring Hitler into the equation and make sweeping emotional statements with no basis to them other then hatred and mix the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with Hitler, the holocaust, etc.

Black Dog I am curious, does a guy like you call people like the above on what they said, or when they make these kinds of comments, sadly you say nothing?

[Argus]

Bigotry and ignorance.

And not the whole "land theft" thing. Whatever.

Nobody's land was stolen, except, arguably, those who fled and never returned. And most of their land was stolen by Egypt and Jordan.

The Left, in its mindlessness, likes to set standards for people they themselves have no hope of living up to. I wonder just what a collection of leftists would be like after 60 years of being surrounded, attacked and terrorized by a group twenty times larger. I suspect they'd either have become a lot more hardened to the realities of life - or died.

I don't think not toturing people, not stealing land, and not basing society on some weird notion of divinely mandated ethnic entitlement are unrealistic standards for anyone to live by.

Given the entire reason for the existence of the state of Israel is a nation state for the protection of Jews, I don't find it odd at all. You have this bizarre belief Israel should govern itself exactly as we do, as though there never was a Holocuast, as though eons of vicious discrimination and repression against Jews were not a fact of history, as if the Arabs surrounding them did not want them all dead. As for torture, I think the mild forms of it as practiced by Israel are infinitely preferable to the cattle-prod-up-the-ass kind as practiced in ALL Muslim nations (without any criticism on this political sites).

Based, you mean, on their accomplishments, on their sophistication, on their intelligence and education and efforts - not to mention citizenship.

No: based on their religion (or their grandparents' religion etc.)

The Jewish state is not a hole, like all the Arab states, because of the hard work and efforts of the Jews. Had it still been an Arab state it would be a hole like every other state in that area. Palestine, when it becomes independant will be another hole. And if the Arabs succeed in taking over Israel, that too, will become a hole.

And why not? I was among them. My feeling then was that the apartheid regimes were pro-west, and easily as respectful of human rights as anything likely to follow. The choice, as far as I was concerned, was between a white regime which brutalized its people and sided with the West, and a Black regime which brutalized its people and sided with the Communists.

So is it the ideaology or the skin colour you hate?

It's neither, actually. Given I saw no reasonable prospect that black majority rule (one man one vote in Africa tends to mean that one man has the one vote) would lead to a better life or more freedom I saw no reason to work towards it.

So far, South Africa has greatly suprised me. Mandela was, for a Communist, surprisingly capable and open to compromise,, and prevented South Africa from making the same journey every other Black African states made shortly after their first vote - into dictatorship and near chaos.

Zimbabwe, on the other hand, is just about exactly as I expected. The people of Zimbabwe were better off when it was called Rhodesia

And I suppose in your view the circumstances of colonialism or the Cold War itself had nothing to do with the failures of postcolonial states?

At this point in time the history is irrelevent. All that matters is the reality of failed states and failed governments on the African continent. IMHO we ought to re-colonize Africa, redraw the borders in recognition of tribal and ethnic realities, set up stable institutional frameworks of government, and then let them try anew. Because they don't seem to be getting anywhere now, no matter how far away they move from their colonial origins.

[Rue]

The Palestinians are going to have to recognize Israel's right to exist. On the other hand Israel will have to give up territory.

umm, the Palestinians have recognized Israel's right to exist since 1988 and re-iterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September 1993.

Arafat letter.

You have hit the essence of the issue. You are forced to pay dues so the union can represent you as a worker. Then a small number of people decide to use the union for political purposes - and the worker has no way of protesting.

I'm a CUPE member and I can vote against resolutions any time I want at general meetings.

Palestinians do NOT recognize Israel's right to exist. It is precisely these kinds of comments that show you should try understand what you are discussing before you make such statements.

Hamas which was elected by the majority of Palestinians has a mandate to destroy the state of Israel in its entirety including attacking civilians anywhere at anytime.

You also really should try educate yourself on the topic, and specifically read up how Yasir Arafat before he died, denounced the above treaties you referred to.

He was in fact offered 98% of the above treaties and rejected them in their entirety, that Sir is a legal and political fact.

More to the point, I am a tad confused. Why does CUPE feel it should select one political conflict and single it out and comment on it?

Seems to me you missed to glaring points. One, if you want to start making comments about political conflicts around the world, there are a hell of a lot of conflicts to criticize. Interesting how for example Chinese treatment of its workers escapes your concern. If you can't see the hippocracy in the selectivity of what conflicts your union chooses to single out, heaven help you.

More to the point, why are you and your union making such pronouncements?

Since when is it a union's role to become a source of righteousness and make pronouncements on international conflicts?

What does it achieve?

Well for one thing it incites people to express feelings of anti-semetism and disguise it as criticism of Israel as you can see by the writings of one poster.

For another it deliberately makes your Jewish union members feel unwelcome and it sends a signal to your union members that they must all think the same way about certain political conflicts. Is that the role of a union-to try impose its collective belief as to political issues unrelated to workplace health and safety on its members?

The last time I looked a union (which I was a representative of by the way for 11 years) was supposed to treat all its members equally and make them feel welcome, and most importantly had a mandate to negotiate on behalf of employees as to issues dealing with sickness and health, seniority,occupational health and safety and wages.

Would have me believe the union is pursuing its true mandate by telling its members to boycott Israel?

Tell me, if CUPE has this much time to make comment on world affairs, when does it worry itself with the more mundane tasks such as workplace health and safety.

And tell me, if a member of CUPE is Jewish or supports Israel or for that matter doesn't agree with whatever political pronouncement your union heads make about international conflicts-can they really be expected to be represented the same way at a grievance as say a non Jew or someone who openly feels Israel should be boycotted?

Can you not see when you allow a union to make selective political statements, it necessarily creates the very same apartheid your union thinks it is criticizing Israel for doing? You have created two sets of union members, those who agree with its political opinions as to international conflicts, and those who don't.

Now you tell me with a straight face, what does a CUPE member do if he or she wears a cepah (skull cap) or has a Jewish name or is identified as Jewish. Now what?

Oh don't worry, we will still represent you and give you the same service if you identify with Israel?

Yah right.

[Rue]

Isreal has been a terrorist stae towards Palestine for many years now. They attack and kill with impunity and the world bodies have done little to stop it. If a public union can start a small but growing sentiment showing Isreal for what it really is, then I have no problems with it. I only wish Canada as a country would also come out and cry foul when events by Isreal happen. Enough of the sympathy for the holocast. Now it is Isreal who is the offender and they are being worse then Hitler about it. Just as Hitler should havebeen stopped much earlier then he was, so should Isreal.

1a. Your references that Israel is a terrorist state and attacks and kills with impunity

is a subjective statement and one that probably flows from the fact that you have never been to Israel, the Gaza Strip of the West Bank and understand the actions that have led to the killing of civilians and military on both sides;

1b. Israel has the international legal right to "kill" persons engaged in terrorist attacks against its civilians-you probably do not understand the law and the doctrine of self-defence but it is a little more complex then simply stating a state is not allowed to defend its civilians from terrorist attacks.

2.Public unions do not have the mandate nor should they have a mandate to selectively pick out international conflicts, choose sides to the conflict and I am not sure how you think engaging in such selective pronouncements will as you say "stop them".

3. You don't stop conflicts choosing one side of a conflict and inciting that one side on. To stop a conflict you must remain neutral, refrain from moral judgement and mediate the conflict by helping both sides find peaceful resolutions. Taking a side merely incites the conflict and in this case the agenda of Hamas which is to destroy the State of Israel. (which from the sounds of it you agree with)

4.Your comments "enough sympathy for the holocast(sic) and " Isreal (sic)..worse then(sic) Hitler" evidences that you started your discussion criticizing the state of Israel's military actions, but then felt it was acceptable to switch mid-stream and criticize how the holocaust is discussed and is remembered which has nothing to do with your original point discussion. By doing this, all you have done is show anyone reading your post precisely how many people like you will feel that when anyone discusses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they can make references that have nothing to do with that conflict and can only serve to incite hatred or intolerance towards all Jews. You vividly manifest what all Jews understand, that invariably when there is a discussion criticizing Israel, it allows people with negative feelings towards Jews to use an alleged debate about Israeli foreign policy to make negative emotional comments of intolerance towards all Jews.

5. Holocast is spelled holocaust, Isreal, Israel and when you use the expression worse then, use the word than not then. When you compare things, use the word than.

6. Your equating of your perception of Israel's military actions and foreign policy to what Hitler did is not only illogical but delibately hateful as you know all it can do is insult Jews and incite hateful feelings towards Jews.

7. Given the above comments mentioned in 4, 5 nd 6, iIt is obvious you have a problem not with the State of Israel and its perceived actions but with all Jews.

Got news for you....Jews and Israelis will defend themselves if you try make sweeping emotional statements designed to incite hatred against their existence. Rather then hate them, why don't you learn to spell, and sit down and try talk to a Jew. You'd be suprised. They don't all own banks, own Hollywood, work as dentists nor are they all involved in any world conspiracies. Some of them are just like you and all they want is the right to live in peace just like Palestinians.

[Rue]

[

"This isn't "anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism" but about fairness."

This is precisely what it is. You should listen carefully to the words CUPE uses when it discusses Israel. They constantly equate Zionism with apartheid and it is particularly because it views Zionism as apartheid and therefore unfair, that it thinks it is inappropriate for Israel to defend its right to exist and feels it can stray so far from its real mandate (to represent employees as to seniority, health and safety,wages).

Fair?

How is it fair at this point in time when Hamas incites its people to believe the way to resolve the conflict is to wipe Israel off the map and engage in pre-meditated terrorist attacks against civilians anywhere in the world at anytime-to suggest Israel should recognize Hamas because that is in fact what the misguided people at CUPE have done.

CUPE has confused the concept of the State of Israel's recognizing the Palestinian people's right to statehood (which they have already done and on more then one occassion) with recognizing Hamas's current constitution and mandate.

Fair?

What country recognizes a political organization which states it has the legitimate right to destroy it and hunt and torture and kill its civilians anywhere in the world until this destruction is achieved?

I can just see it now, CUPE recognizes the right to any organization in the world dedicated to abolishing any and all unions. Hah.

If it was truly about fairness, CUPE would not take sides in such a conflict and would remain silent on such topics.

Fair?

How is it fair to anyone who now does not now agree with CUPE's international political views as to the Israeli-Political conflict to expect equal treatment from their union representatives?

[Rue]

Quote 1:Once these people got a homeland they defend it with a vengence and yes they have crossed the line in so many ways, that they are now the ones who are the bad guys. They would love to just take a week and put all palestinians to death, and then say genocide us, we were the ones who had genocide put on us....etc.

Quite 2: I do not like the jewish people I have met that are from Israel as they are the worst at showing contempt for all others and they do believe that need show no loyalty to anyone, only to Isreal.

Quote 3: We pretty much gave Isreal the bomb and now they have enough to destroy much of the whole southern europe and north africa along with all if the middle east. Why do they need this ability. We know they will never agree to disarm these weapons. So it is a quagmire that we will never get away from all that we have allowed to be created in the first place.

Quote 4:So why would anyone be upset that a union here in Canada voices its opinion against the Isreali people and all of its current policies on the palestinian people. It is not something that we all can not see for our selves and it is only that now that this is done it will draw more attention to what many would like to just flow away without notice. I do think that this is something that does need attention and so I agree with the union or any other group who are willing to take an honest look and give an honest opinion.

In response to quote 1;

Your statement that "they would just love" is illogical. You have made a sweeping generalization as to how all Israelis feel and what their motives are. Having lived in Israel and witnessed terrrorist attacks and having seen dead Palestinian children who were asked to carry bombs and had them blow up in their face, let me say this to you-no one, Israeli, Palestinian "would just love" to kill. Until you have witnessed people blow up in your face and picked up body parts-until that day Sir, don't make such generalizations because I can assure you the people on both sides of this horrid conflict do not "love" or wish to wipe each other out. What they want Sir is dignity, the right to live in peace, to have hope, all the things you take for granted and they still dream for.

Quote 2;

Read back your " I don't like..that I have met from Israel...your comment Sir is a sweeping generalization of all Israelis-your subjective perceptions of the Israelis you met means diddle swat in the whole scheme of things and quite frankly shows that you have deep issues of hatred towards all Israelis because you met a few...you are no different then the person that says, the Arabs I met are all pushy, so I hate them all, or I never met a black man without an attitude...

It is precisely these sweeping generalizations that will then allow you to make sweeping emotional statements that stereotype people and only serve to incite hatred and intolerance.

To put it bluntly, I doubt Sir, you ever met the brother, sister, mother, father of a child blown up in front of their face from Israe, so your perspective if it was not so hateful is laughable.

Quote 3;

You refer to "we" giving the bomb to Israel. Clearly you do not understand who Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer were. May I suggest before you make such a statement of "we" giving Israel the bomb, you figure out who they were.

As for Israel's possession of the ability to use nuclear fusion to "bomb" the world, it is interesting you criticize Israel but not the U.S., Russia, China, South Africa, Pakistan, India, Britain, France, North Korea, or Brazil. The point is Sir you either believe no country in the world should possess nuclear weapons or your arguement necessarily becomes selective and therefore contradictory.

The real point is Sir, no country in the world should have such weapons. The fact Sir is that anyone, you and I can make a dirty bomb that explodes nuclear contamination into a crowd and can cause thousands of deaths. The fact is any person can use chemicals and toxic poisons to commit mass murder. So your selectively criticizing Israel for having such technological capabilities doesn't validate criticism of the State nor more then it would any other state with the same technology.

Now to explain one other point, Israel has this technology because in case you didn't notice, the majority of the Arab League nations called for the absolute destruction of the State of Israel and it wasn't until a relatively short time period ago Egypt and Jordan abandon such mandates. The absolute destruction of the State of Israel is still the mandate of Iran, Syria and Hamas to name just a few in along line of countries and terrorist groups operating in these countries who have openly stated they would if they could, wipe out Israel.

I would also like to remind you that when Israel constructed its nuclear bombs the Soviet Union and China were both providing massive supplies of weapons to Egypt, Syria and Iraq and openly siding with their calls to put an end to the State of Israel, so before you select Israel out for criticism why not go back and review the climate at the time they constructed the weapon.

More to the point would you have us really believe that you think Israel is a danger to Europe and would bomb it with nuclear weapons? That is what your comment infers.

Quote 4:

Why would anyone be upset? Are you serious? Do you think all Canadians think the same? Do you think all Canadians think like you? Do you think for that manner, that all union members think the same way and should be expected to think the same way? Do you think everyone is like you and makes sweeping generalizations and comes to conclusions based on their subjective feelings and then tries to impose them on everyone else? Upset? Tell me Sir, what happens now if you are a union member and you don't agree with CUPE'S views as to Israel. What do you do with your Jewish name or skull cap now? What if you are any kind of Jew (pro or anti Israel) or a non Jew who does not agree with CUPE's views? Can you expect equal treatment if you want to file a grievance? Upset? Well of course. Since when is it a union's mandate to make pronouncements about a political conflict that has nothing to do with its mandate? How does criticizing the State of Israel's perceived foreign policy advance the union's real mandate which is to represent employees with seniority, wages, sickness ahd disability and occupational health and safety issues?

What has happened that CUPE has so much time on its hands that it now feels it can completely steer away from its true mandate and make such pronouncements.

More to the point, how could any rational person who is a CUPE member or just an ordinary Canadian not be just a bit upset that people running a union are so stupid as to confuse the State of Israel's refusal to recognize Hamas with the issue as to recognizing Palestinian statehood. Read back what CUPE said. They have failed to distinguish the two isses. Israel currently fails to recognize Hamas because its constritution calls for the hunting, torturing and killing of civilians (of any nation not just Israel) as a legitimate means to wiping out the State of Israel. Its mandate is not to peacefully coexist with Israel but to wipe it off the map. Every day in its schools it teaches its children to carry guns, glorify terrrorist attacks and dreaming of wiping out Israel.

Upset? How can CUPE be so retarded as to not be aware that Israel long ago stated it recognizes the right for Palestinians to have a state and supports the creation of such a state by peaceful means.

Upset? No. I love to see Canadians who have never been to Israel, do not understand what is going on in the Middle East, and who live in a world where they take peace and security for granted, making moral judgements and sweeping generalizations of issues they know little or anything about.

[fixer1]

Well I guess I must say that you have corrected my spelling but you did understand the meaning which is the whole issue behind communications. So really it is nothning but a barb because you do not like my statements.

I know very well that Jews are not the bankers and the ills of all society. They are though a very closed minded society when things do not go their way. They have been given the land of Israel, only because of a patent on explosives was lifted to help reduce the costs of a war. I guess the fact that the true owners of that land lost their rights during the Crusades and if not for the British taking over from the Arabs, it probably would have still not been given to the Jewish people had there not been the deals made during the war. So for now I will say that the jewish state of Israel has only had its claim to this, as the homeland for the jewish people for only a short time of recent history. The fact that they fight so hard to keep it, probably comes from the fact, that even back in biblical times this land was mostly ruled by those from other lands, and not by the jewish people. This area has so many differnt ethnic origins that it would be hard to say that it was ever a land of only one tribe or people.

The Jewish people of today, do not even slightly ressemble the people of old, and yes years of being on the move and inbreeding with the local populations, and I would hazzard a guess that very little of the original people of Israel are still around.

But that does not excuse them for their own ways and the methods they use to kill people, who they believe are enemies of the state. They are by far worse than any other ruling body the world has known, with the exception of the recent USA and Iraq, and some african dictators. You think that by fighting what I say it will make me give up and therefore quiet the knowledge that the wrongs are now being done by the state of Israel. When really it is in fact true statements, that Israel is now the offender and not the one who needs the help of the world. They are the one that needs to be put down by the world bodies and if this can not be done with words, then yes it will need to be done then by force. As I said before, we made the mistake in not taking Hitler down early in his rise, we should not repeat that again when we see the same things are now being done with Israel.

[scribblet]

But that does not excuse them for their own ways and the methods they use to kill people who they believe are enemies of the state. They are by far worse than any other ruling body the world has known, with the exception of the recent USA and Iraq, and some african dictators. You think that by fighting what I say it will make me give up and therefore quiet the knowledge that the wrongs are now being done by the state of Israel. When really it is in fact true statements that Israel is now the offender and not the one who need the help of the world. They are the one that need to be put down by the world bodies and if this can not be done with words, then yes it will need to be done then by force. As I said before, we made the mistake in not taking Hitler down early in his rise, we should not repeat that again when we see the same things nown being done with Israel.

Nonsense, Israel uses violence only to defend itself from extremeist hostile neighbours.no surprise though, blaming Israel while ignoring the Islamist atrocities such as the terrorist attacks launched against Israeli school children in the towns of Kiryat, Shemona and Maalot.

Let them dance in the streets over the blood of innocent civilians while chanting no peace and I promise you they will find none.

If palestinians are orchastrating suicide bombings against israeli civiilians, they have to act to defend themselves. It is not Israel's fault that palestinian terrorist choose to live among innocent civilians, using them as hostages - its a pretty rough balancing act for Israel.

Maybe the PLO should try out a democracy like Israel. You know, try building and engineering stuff insted of blowing them up, it might work for them, and they might like it.

[Argus]

So why would anyone be upset that a union here in Canada voices its opinion against the Isreali people and all of its current policies on the palestinian people. It is not something that we all can not see for our selves and it is only that now that this is done it will draw more attention to what many would like to just flow away without notice. I do think that this is something that does need attention and so I agree with the union or any other group who are willing to take an honest look and give an honest opinion.

It is impossible to have an "honest" look at anything when one is wrapped in ignorance. You are clearly almost entirely ignorant about everything to do with Israel, the middle east, and the history there. I suggest you go play somewhere while adults talk.

[Rue]

That does not however excuse CUPE with its simple-minded view of the Middle-East.

If CUPE's opinion on the Middle East is simple minded for supporting the Palestinians and condeming Israel for their actions then isn't your own opinion for supporting Israel and condeming Palestinian for their action just as simple minded?

You and Warwick as private citizens are entitled to any opinion you choose. CUPE is a labour union that represents many people in labour matters. These people have many different opinions on non labour issues and CUPE should not picking and choosing which of those opinions it represents. The only way it can represent all its members is not to get involved in these issues. Why would an organization that needs solidarity among its members to function, seek to divide them by getting involved in matters that have nothing to do with labour relations? Presuming to do so is just plain old arrogance.

Warwick excellently and precisely said and I admire a man who summarizes it all in so few words! But to tell you the truth I am enjoying discussing this so I confess Warwick, I have waxed on far too long when your words capture it all!

[Black Dog]

Nobody's land was stolen, except, arguably, those who fled and never returned. And most of their land was stolen by Egypt and Jordan.

False.

Given the entire reason for the existence of the state of Israel is a nation state for the protection of Jews, I don't find it odd at all. You have this bizarre belief Israel should govern itself exactly as we do, as though there never was a Holocuast, as though eons of vicious discrimination and repression against Jews were not a fact of history, as if the Arabs surrounding them did not want them all dead.

The Holocaust and historical oppression of Jews is terrible, but other groups have experienced similar treatment without turning around and becooming oppressors themselves. And in this case, I think the invocation of the Holocaust etc. has become a excericse in cynical polotiking, much as the term anti-semetism is applied recklessly to critics of state policy.

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to expand on why I "hate" them.

As for torture, I think the mild forms of it as practiced by Israel are infinitely preferable to the cattle-prod-up-the-ass kind as practiced in ALL Muslim nations (without any criticism on this political sites).

Moral relativism combined with a bogus statement (yes, Israel gets a lot of atention from the left, but not exclusively.)

The Jewish state is not a hole, like all the Arab states, because of the hard work and efforts of the Jews. Had it still been an Arab state it would be a hole like every other state in that area. Palestine, when it becomes independant will be another hole. And if the Arabs succeed in taking over Israel, that too, will become a hole.

Irrelevant. You don't have to be a hard worker to benefit from Israel's Zionist policies. The only criteria is that you be a Jew.

At this point in time the history is irrelevent. All that matters is the reality of failed states and failed governments on the African continent. IMHO we ought to re-colonize Africa, redraw the borders in recognition of tribal and ethnic realities, set up stable institutional frameworks of government, and then let them try anew. Because they don't seem to be getting anywhere now, no matter how far away they move from their colonial origins.

History is always relevant. And your mistaken: Africa is coming along, albeit very slowly. But then, given the duration of colonialism and the stregth of its legacy. To expect nations in Africa or the Middle East that have less than a century of self-rule under their belts to be instant successes is completely unrealistic, even more so when one considers that the colonial powers that ruled them often left them without the means to govern themselves.

BHS:

I think it's fair to say that of all of the countries in the ME Israel is still the freest, and still the one that treats it's citizens best regardless of their ethnicity. (Remember, this excludes the fact of the occupied lands.) I think that if you had to predict which ME nation was most likely to commit barbarism against it's own citizens, Israel would be at the bottom of the list. Of all of the nations in the ME that need reform, Israel is the most likely to do so and will have the easiest time of it. For all of these reasons, Israel deserves our support. It deserves at least the same support that the completely undemocratic nations in the region are routinely given regardless of their policies.

I agree Israel is the most likely to reform. But it won't reform if it's not called on its failures. I recognize Israel's good points, but also belive that a secular, pluralistic democracy would make a better model for the regon than a thousand Iraqs. (Aside: it's really hard to take all the handwringing about those big bad evil Arab regimes when the west does its part to ensure those regimes hold the reins.)

[Rue]

Germany has a similar clause in its constitution. Anyone of German origin (and there are many living in Eastern Europe) has the right to become a German citizen. Japanese laws are very ethnocentric and it's all but impossible for a non-ethnic Japanese to become a citizen. In the world, American society is the exception not the norm. The world tends to view America as a mongrel.

Those policies you cite are based on nationality, not a nebulous concept of ethnicity.

There are many Muslim Israeli citizens and they are Islamic parties in the Knesset. I am unaware of any Jewish Party in any parliament in any Arab country. In Saudi Arabia, it is strictly forbidden to show any non-Islamic religious symbol. (That means you cannot wear a crucifix around your neck in a public place.)

And what bearing does any of that have on Israel's policies? The only explanation would be that you feel two wrongs, in fact, make a right.

I also note that the prescence of Arab parties (which were forbidden until the '80s) in the Knesset are oft-cited as proof of Israel's pluralistic and egalitarin sociaty. The reality is much different.

Worlds apart.

BD, that has got to be the weirdest post you have ever made.

I can't speak for others but my support for Israel stems from one simple fact: Israel is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. The kinds of discussions we have on this forum simply don't occur in any Arab country, with the possible exception of Lebanon. I suspect you would feel perfectly at ease in a Tel Aviv cafe and you would find plenty of people who would agree with you or disagree. In Amman, Damascus or Cairo, you would not express yourself the same way.

I imagine if I was an Arab, though, I'd probably feel a little differently. Anyway, my post earlier was essentially a parody of Argus's post which preceded it. I stand by the South Africa comparison.

If the Left's antipathy toward Israel is based on its inability to live up to a liberal democracy ideal, then why in God's name does the Left defend teh Arab cause?

What is this "Arab cause" you speak of?

You stand by the apartheid comparison for several reasons;

1-you have a selective memory of Christians and their use of political states to impose their religion on the masses and their continuing to use political states to impose their religion;

2-you have a selective memory as to the fact that in the entire Muslim world, dhimmitude has been practiced since the beginning of Islam-I suggest you read up about it because if you did you would not be so quick to make such analogies and you would understand that for any Muslim nation to criticize Israel for being secular, they had better be prepared to abandon their own secularity otherwise it is the hight of hippocracy suggesting Israel's desire to be a Jewish nation is any different then all the Muslim nations who wish to be Muslim nations or for that matter all the Christian nations which still fail to seperate state from Church;

3-you probably do not understand Jewish religion and the origins of the connection of Jews to the nation of Israel - its based on a religious belief of a covenant from God not on the concept that Jews are better then others and want to be better then them;

4-you make sweeping statements as to how non Jews are treated in Israel but the point is and you missed it- not one Arab nation entrenches in its constitution equality for Jews or Christians or non Muslims-you really should read up on Israel's constitution, laws, and court decisions entrenching and enforcing the rights of non Jewish Israelis before you make such statements. Is their discrimination against people in Israel? Of course but it is not as simple as it being discrimination against Arab Israelis. Between Jews there is a complex conflict between Ashkanazi and Tasfardic Jews, light and dark skinned Jews, Russian Jews and other Jews, etc., and not just with Arab Israelis. The real discrimination often happens within the Jewish society between each other. What you think is discrimination based on race is not-what has happened is that because the country is so small and terrorist attacks are so rampant, Arab Jews suffer because of security's inability to distinguish Arab Israeli from Palestinian. It flows from a security dilemma. Then again I am sure where you live you never heard of how Canada interned Japanese, Italians and Germans in World War Two. Innocent people, suffer because of security problems.

One other thing you clearly do not understand. In Israel everyone must join the army from when they are 18 to 65. They do their mandatory service and then they are in the reserves. Everyone lives on call. Everyone knows or is related to the people who die in attacks. Any civilian might be called up at a moment's notice.

Because everyone is in the Armed Forces and in a constant state of siege life evolves around the armed forces. To get hired in any job you can't escape the military connection. If you do not serve in the Israeli military people do not feel they can trust you. Since many Arab Israelis are not allowed to join the military they find themselves shut out of work. The discrimination is not because they are Arab Israelis, it flows from the fact that they weren't in the Army and therefore can be fully trusted. I have good friends who are Christian and Muslim Israelis and they had to leave because they could not get work precisely for that reason. It flows from the inability to understand who the real enemy is not because of religion or skin colour. Then there is the complex discrimination that goes on between European and Arab Jews, and so on. So please do not generalize and make sweeping statements about Israeli society. It is far too complex for such simplistic descriptions and more to the point at least it can say its constitution and its courts have stepped in to protect the rights of all its citizens unlike the treatment of Jews and Christians or non Muslims in Muslim countries.

I love the people that point the finger at Israel and suggest it discriminates. They should look at how we deal with our own aboriginals and our own problems with how we have handled treatment of our Chinese and Indian immigrants and the head tax, our internment of Japanese, Italians and Germans, etc. We should look at how Canada refused to take in Jewish refugees during World War Two because McKenzie King was a raving anti-semite and how our major cities, particularly Toronto practiced open apartheid and racial and religious segregation even until the early 60's. Sometimes we have selective memories. Then again many of the people pointing the finger at Israel are Christians who take for granted their majority status. As well many persons from Asia and Africa have come from developing countries where they have been taught Israel and Jews are evil. The Protocols of Zion are still widely presented as truth throughout many Asian nations and the Middle East.

[Rue]

As I've mentioned before, Jews and Palestinian Arabs are very closely genetically related. This is not a case of transplanted Europeans dominating put-upon locals of an entirely different genetic lineage. The Jews find their genetic ancestry springing from the area surrounding the Dead Sea.

First: the "whites/dark-skined" comment was a direct response to Argus's statement that the left reflexively sides with "brown-skinned people". I'm well aware of the racial similarities between semetic peoples.

However, a sizeable chunk of Israel's population are "transplanted Europeans", be they the first immigrants from post-Holocaust Europe or their descendents, or the large number of North American, Eastern European and Russian Jews that made up the bulk of immigration since Israel's founding.

Ahh, I see, so that's why you hate them.

Also, I haven't read one, one, single defense of apartheid on any conservative blog or other website in the five years that I've reading blogs. If such defenses exist they are certainly not held by main stream conservatives. For you to throw that line in as if it were a common conservative viewpoint at the end of your post is utter bs. And hypocritical, when you consider that the opposite scenario, say, the leftist defense of Castro's Cuba and the monstrous Che Guevera, is commonplace on lefty blogs.

Um, given that the end of apartheid predated the internet, I'm not surprised you don't see many defenses of it. But the act remains, conservatives in the '70s and '80s were staunch defenders of the apartheid regime.

And why not? I was among them. My feeling then was that the apartheid regimes were pro-west, and easily as respectful of human rights as anything likely to follow. The choice, as far as I was concerned, was between a white regime which brutalized its people and sided with the West, and a Black regime which brutalized its people and sided with the Communists. So far, South Africa has greatly suprised me. Mandela was, for a Communist, surprisingly capable and open to compromise,, and prevented South Africa from making the same journey every other Black African states made shortly after their first vote - into dictatorship and near chaos.

Zimbabwe, on the other hand, is just about exactly as I expected. The people of Zimbabwe were better off when it was called Rhodesia.

You know what the sad thing is. The person you are trying to explain yourself to hasn't a clue what you lived through and thinks he can lecture you from the comfort of his cushy, soft, protected, Canadian perspective. Man if I could take every Canadian who feels they can lecture people on what is right and wrong about other countries and have them travel to some of our reservations or visit the regimes of the governments they glorify.

You know what is also sad. He probably will never speak to refugees from Zimbabwe black or white and ask them what Robert Mugabe has done nor is he aware of how in Toronto we too had signs telling blacks and Jews they weren;t allowed on the beeches. No...in Canada...impossible.