Union Boycotts Israel

May 28, 2006 7:16 PM

Union Boycotts Israel.Delegates to the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario convention voted overwhelmingly to support a boycott of Israel products, part of the The Wall Must Fall campaign. (TWMF Pamphlet in PDF form.)
posted by five fresh fish (80 comments total)

I don't know which campaign they have specifically supported. And both the National CUPE and Ontario CUPE pages have no news whatsoever about the convention, save that some guy got re-elected.

I had no idea there was a boycott campaign underway, let alone that a union might actually vote in favour of supporting it.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:17 PM on May 28, 2006

I can't imagine supporting any group of people who blow themselves up, intentionally positioning their bodies (bus, market, etc.) to maximize civilian deaths. It is insane.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:48 PM on May 28, 2006

I can't imagine supporting any group of people who codifies into law the separation of families on racial grounds. But, shit, each to their own, right?
posted by Jimbob at 7:52 PM on May 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Actually, after they've blown themselves up, you can't do much of anything to support them, but any kind of supportive gesture aimed at convincing them that they do not have to blow themselves up and kill a bunch of strangers may indeed be of some value. Ya think? Oh, I'm sorry, you can't do anything with the insane except to kill them before they have a chance to kill themselves (and others with them). Okay.
posted by wendell at 7:57 PM on May 28, 2006

What were the Union of public employees buying from Israel anyway? Is Israel big in stationery?

Will this mean they will boycott US firms with Israeli offices like Intel and Google?

Still - boycotting Israel is probably the simplest and cheapest way to remove the threat of Muslim terrorist attacks on your country.
posted by sien at 8:00 PM on May 28, 2006

I'm not sure how boycotting Israel for their instutionalized abbrogation of human rights is tacit approval of terrorism.

I can clearly say that I support the rights of both parties to live as human beings unimpeded by policies and actions that otherwise would reduce the quality or length of their lives.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 8:07 PM on May 28, 2006

"I can't imagine supporting any group of people who codifies into law the separation of families on racial grounds."

How's about supporting a group who blows up civilians during ceasefires? That's what CUPE has done in picking Israel as "the bad guy". I mean they could at least have issued a statement reading something like "we at CUPE can't imagine two groups of people who deserve each other more."
posted by Rusty Iron at 8:08 PM on May 28, 2006

The Israeli law sounds awful and yet I can't help but think I would be thrilled that it existed if I lived there.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:13 PM on May 28, 2006

How's about supporting a group who blows up civilians during ceasefires? That's what CUPE has done in picking Israel as "the bad guy".

Well, you would have to assume the Palestinian Authority has some kind of, you know, economy, and export power, in order to be able to boycot them. What exactly are we supposed to not buy to show our disapproval of Palestinian terrorism?
posted by Jimbob at 8:13 PM on May 28, 2006

They make a comparison to ending the apartheid in Palestine to that of South Africa, but I'm pretty sure Nelson Mandela never vowed to destroy the establishment of South Africa.
posted by Down10 at 8:17 PM on May 28, 2006

Unsurprising; CUPE is actually a very, very leftist organization.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:20 PM on May 28, 2006

No way that a Canadian labor union is possibly leftist.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:26 PM on May 28, 2006

How about we just boycott Manischewitz.
Now there's a sacrifice.
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 8:29 PM on May 28, 2006

Regarding the wall, isn't there some sort of rule where anything opposed by both the ISM and the Israeli Settler movement is automatically awesome?
posted by kickingtheground at 8:29 PM on May 28, 2006

I probably should have said it's more surprising that they haven't done this sooner.
A good way to get people talking about Unions again, and an easy way for their members to feel some sort of political juice, even if it's ultimately an empty gesture.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:32 PM on May 28, 2006

They're not little boys fighting. Someone can say "that is wrong and I will not support it" without it meaning "I clearly support the other guy and their bad stuff". Likewise without reality somehow altering such that "X is wrong" warps into a false statement whenever that observation is not immediately followed by a statement that Y is also wrong.

But at the end of day, even though they are being expected to act like grown-ups, they definitely appear to be little boys fighting.
posted by -harlequin- at 8:36 PM on May 28, 2006

That darn wall is like, totally unfair to poor Palestinian suicide bombers trying to earn a living. I am seriously considering posting something on the internet about it!
posted by LarryC at 8:41 PM on May 28, 2006

They make a comparison to ending the apartheid in Palestine to that of South Africa, but I'm pretty sure Nelson Mandela never vowed to destroy the establishment of South Africa.

Check again, Mandela was a co-founder and leader of the ANC's militant wing.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 8:45 PM on May 28, 2006

Thanks for the important heads-up; Metafilter must have gone for days without yet another argument about Israel.

How does the Canadian Union of Public Employees feel about circumcision? Do they support Critical Mass rides? Do they have a firm stance on the value of antidepressants? MORBO DEMANDS AN ANSWER!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:02 PM on May 28, 2006

ROU_Xenophobe:

i) Probably against it.
ii) Probably for it.
iii) If they ran everything, there'd be no need for antidepressants.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:04 PM on May 28, 2006

Really, what can be accomplished by boycotting an entire nation besides fomenting acrimony?
posted by clockzero at 9:05 PM on May 28, 2006

Could you folks on both sides just hurry up and recite your talking points already so we can delete this shit?
posted by joe lisboa at 9:09 PM on May 28, 2006

we were doing a lot better with ceiling cat
posted by pyramid termite at 9:19 PM on May 28, 2006

I can't imagine supporting any group of people who blow themselves up

The Israeli apartheid wall is a kind of gerrymandering. Israel claims to be the "middle east's only democracy" yet they are also "a Jewish state." Lo and behold, if you include the poor folk living in the territories, there might in fact be a majority of Arabs in the country overall. The demographic trends are also against Jews in Israel. Arab birthrates are outstripping Jewish immigration + birthrates. Therefore, keeping the dirty Arabs ghettoed and excluded from democracy in is in fact the main purpose of the wall, not shutting out terrorists, not increasing security. This is the big lie people miss when all they pay attention to are the soundbytes.

People have resorted to blowing themselves up after decades of being shut in, rocketed, held up at checkpoints when they need medical attention.. etc. Make someone's life worthless and it's amazing how quickly they'll give it up to rock the boat. Being against this wall is not equivalent to supporting terrorism. It's in fact being against one of the preconditions that gives rise to it.
posted by scarabic at 9:29 PM on May 28, 2006 [3 favorites]

I'm not sure how boycotting Israel for their instutionalized abbrogation of human rights is tacit approval of terrorism.

God damn it who the fuck do you think you are making a logical argument in a thread about Israel/Palestine. Either point how how everything Israel does is okay because of terrorism or how Israelis are all racists or get the fuck out.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:45 PM on May 28, 2006

Ohh! OK, sorry XQUZYPHYR.

Moving on now. Here's to bigger and better things, eh?
posted by Matt Oneiros at 9:54 PM on May 28, 2006

People have resorted to blowing themselves up after decades of being shut in, rocketed, held up at checkpoints when they need medical attention.. etc.

After the Holocaust, why didn't Jews rush into Germany and start blowing themselves up? Were they to busy running to fetch their gold, or just tied up with closing costs in Brooklyn?

There is a lot of gray, but the Islamic disregard for life, while sociologically interesting, is inexcusable. It is also a threat (wait for it) to modern civilization. All religion is, or course, it's just that Islam has the shortest fuse.

So you can bring your ancient "scary arab" argument to the table and shake it around, but hurry up with your demonstration, the arab behind you is about to demo.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 10:16 PM on May 28, 2006

There is a lot of gray, but the Islamic disregard for life, while sociologically interesting, is inexcusable.

I can understand, however, the public-relations value for Israelis in ignoring Palestinian Christians. After all, given the unfair vilification of Islam after 9/11, why let your Western supporters know that you are also battling Christians?

posted by Jimbob at 10:40 PM on May 28, 2006

Are there a lot of Palestinian Christians blowing themselves up in pizza parlors and busses full of civilian commuters, Jimbob?
posted by Dreama at 10:50 PM on May 28, 2006

No, but the Palestinian Christians are equally affected by Israel's racist laws as the Palestinian Muslims, and a surprisingly large number of the Muslims are actually opposed to blowing themselves up. In fact, statistical study has demonstrated that suicide bombers are the one category of killers least likely to kill again.
posted by wendell at 11:13 PM on May 28, 2006

To suggest that not supporting Israel somehow validates Palestinian terrorist actions is as disingenuous as suggesting that criticizing the Iraq war is "hating America."

One can easily have no desire to support either party in this particular conflict. "The Islamic disregard for life" is an illusion, as one never notices one's own disregards. If anything is "a threat to modern civilization" it is the American disregard for human life. Even critics of current American foreign policy like to cite the death count of American citizens in Iraq, ignoring the vastly larger death count of the Iraqi population, for which we are entirely responsible. Saddam may have been killing his own people, but we have demonstrated that we are far better at it.

But there is no need for, nor no benefit in, picking teams - not in Iraq, not in Israel. There is blood on everyone's hands.
posted by mek at 11:19 PM on May 28, 2006

In fact, statistical study has demonstrated that suicide bombers are the one category of killers least likely to kill again.

I'd like to see some numbers on that. Or something.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:20 PM on May 28, 2006

I don't know where I stand, politically, on the conflict discussed in this thread. I realize, however, that the political situation is so exquisitely polarized that I can't even think of a good neutral name for the conflict itself. Looking at just the first few comments in this thread, I realize that the tension and polarization involved is just tremendous. And it seems to be getting more and more tense and polarized.

This is bad. Something very, very bad is going to happen there. Worse than what's been happening. I don't have a good geopolitical analysis leading me to this conclusion; it's just a gut feeling. Something bad is going to happen there, and it's going to hurt us all.

And I don't think there's anything that anyone in the world can do to stop it.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:40 PM on May 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Wish I could disagree with you, mr_roboto. We never learn.
posted by brundlefly at 11:47 PM on May 28, 2006

Better start sending back those Intel Pentium-M's and Centrinos in their laptops then.
posted by PenDevil at 12:14 AM on May 29, 2006

"Make someone's life worthless and it's amazing how quickly they'll give it up to rock the boat."

well said.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 12:40 AM on May 29, 2006

Intel Pentium-M's and Centrinos in their laptops

Or (trade them in and) buy AMD powered computers.
posted by asok at 1:40 AM on May 29, 2006

Ok. Let us take recent news. 4 days ago declared it wanted to sit down and negotiate and help Palestinians get a state. Abbas, in turnk, said that Hamna shoudl recognize the right of Israel to exist and that he would have a referendum among the Palestinians to forward such a plan, assumingk, he said, that Arabs wanted statehood and peace. Hamas countered they would not recognize Israel's right to exist and the would not negotiate. And that is where it is at presently. The US wants a wall at Mexican border and Mexican president declares it is illegal and he will go to court. Boucott Mexico? Build a wall? Racist? etc etc or sheer self survala. Of course demographics agains Israel if you count in arabs in territories. But were there a settlement, ther would be no territories, or at least a redefined settlement to the past few invasions against Israel. Amd tjenm the miollion or so Israeli Arabs (who do n't want to leave Israel) would still be a minority. But with rights to vote, serve in govt, hold jobs, etc etc
posted by Postroad at 4:19 AM on May 29, 2006

I suspect it is possible to be both against the wall, AND against blowing people up. Just saying. No need to be dumbasses here -- oh wait.
posted by chunking express at 5:31 AM on May 29, 2006

etc etc or sheer self survala.
. . .
Amd tjenm the miollion or so Israeli Arabs (who do n't want to leave Israel) would still be a minority.

OK, I'm convinced.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:48 AM on May 29, 2006

"After the Holocaust..."
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 10:16 PM

Woah, woah, woah, stop right there.
posted by dobie at 6:22 AM on May 29, 2006

Israel has been trying to give back the territories since 1967. The Palestinans didn't exist at the time, so they tried to give it back to Jordan. But nobody would take it (Jordan doesn't have that much love for the Palestinians).
posted by zpousman at 6:31 AM on May 29, 2006

There were two things that surprised me about this item: that the union would get itself involved in such a contentious issue; and that there is (Canadian) Jewish support for this boycott.

I think the apartheid comparison is very appropriate. The unions and, for that matter, a whole lot of private citizens, took part in boycotting South African products. And in the end, apartheid was ended.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:11 AM on May 29, 2006

Palestinian Christians are equally affected by Israel's racist laws

All Israeli Arabs (including those who have citizenship) are affected by racist Israeli law and behaviour.

When entering Israel on an Israeli passport, Israeli Arabs are told to leave the Israeli line up and told to go into the foreigner line-up at immigration. I don't know if this is officially in the regulations, but the Israeli border guards certainly have the policy, written or unwritten. (I know about this because a friend who is affected always goes into the Israeli line, knowing he will be told to go into the other, because he feels he has the right - which he should. His family has lived in Palestine since about 33 A.D.).

If Israel really did take the high road here - end racist laws within Israel, hold to the 1967 border, not create borders which put people's farms into Israel, but not their houses and then declare them to have no right to their land - they would have a lot more international support. But you can hate what the terrorists do, and still hate that Israel treats millions of innocent people the way that they do. People get angry at Israel because, frankly, they respect Israel that much more than the Palestinian leadership and they expect more from them.
posted by jb at 8:30 AM on May 29, 2006

five fresh fish - you shouldn't be surprised that CUPE is getting involved in a contentious issue. I have a fair bit of experience with Toronto CUPE locals, and they are very willing to be controversial. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't, but I would never ever say that they minced their words.
posted by jb at 8:32 AM on May 29, 2006

And then there's was Oslo, and then Arafat gave a lot to Israel but no problem we get peace.

Then Rabin killed by... ASSHOLES

Then Arafat is no longer a man of peace (MAGIC)

Then Arafat put in "prison"

Then, we won't talk until only Abbas president

Then Arafat died and Abbas the only president

Then palestinians begin to hope for real peace talks

Then there's was nothing but a big Wall

Then, so what those fuckers won't let us live so welcome Hamas

Then, you see yousee, those assholes of a palestinians don't want Israel to exist, Uh, see?! so we won't talk to them until Hamas out of order, gie that brick there's a hole there on the wall!!

Everyone will pay for the things he gets, and Israel is no eception. Now she's so powerfull it can bring peace in there but won't, so she'll pay and hard cash!
posted by zouhair at 8:58 AM on May 29, 2006

How's about supporting a group who blows up civilians during ceasefires?

But blowing up civilians outside of ceasefires is totally kosher.
posted by delmoi at 9:07 AM on May 29, 2006

After the Holocaust, why didn't Jews rush into Germany and start blowing themselves up? Were they to busy running to fetch their gold, or just tied up with closing costs in Brooklyn?

Certainly, many Nazis got theirs after the end of world war two. But that's beside the point. You can't compare what happened after the war with what's happening during the war.

On the other hand, the wall itself is a good idea as long as there are suicide bombers running around.
posted by delmoi at 9:12 AM on May 29, 2006

I'm not sure whether I should be offended or just laugh at the ridiculousness each time someone calls Israel an "apartheid" state. It is no different then when republicans or democrats say that the act the other party wants to pass is something the Nazis would do. By using inflammatory language, you get nowhere, except that is to completely discredit yourself.

I have in the past not been a supporter of the wall, with the hope that a single state could exist and everyone could just skip around and be happy. Unfortunately, neither side is willing to attempt to create a situation like that, and so a two state solution is necessary. While there are a few Israelis who believe that much or all of Palestine is the right of the Jewish people, even the most radical are unwilling to kill in order to accomplish their goals. Such has not been the case on the other side. A much larger proportion of the Palestian people deny the right of existence to Israel, as is proven by Hamas's election.

Hamas has been given the opportunity to normalize relations with the world, but instead of doing so sticks to its hardline position that includes actively and openly supporting terrorist attacks into the state of Israel. These bombings are not aimed at military instalations, rather they are targeted in civilian areas, such as coffee shops, discos and restaurants. When Israel retaliates, it occasionally kills civilians, but only because they were in the line of fire of a terrorist official, as opposed to being the targets themselves. Palestinian terror is meant to inspire fear, Israeli military operation is meant to cause difficulties only for the terrorists.

As far as a rascist regime, that is again ludicrous. The only arabs in the middle east who have voting rights are those in Israel. Does that mean that Syria is rascist because it does not allow its arabs to vote? Arab Israelis are given full Israeli benefits. And as far as different lines at the airport, what would you do if an army of terrorists dressed as civilians was actively waging war against you? The reason why anyone would take the position that profiling is never acceptable is due to idealistic naivete. Live in the line of fire in Jerusalem for a few years, and then write again that in extreme cases such as this one, some profiling is required for safety. In South Africa the reason people were denied the vote, forced to live in certain seperate and unequal areas, and made to carry special ID cards at all time or face fierce punishments had to do with a rascist belief that the blacks were too incompetent to govern themselves. In Israel, a single act of profiling is based upon an undesireable situation of large amounts of terrorism by a specific group.
posted by Mister Fyodor at 11:44 AM on May 29, 2006

Sorry Mr. Fydor, but you are dead wrong about Israeli Arabs having full rights within Israel. They are second or even third class citizens. Virtually everything you write about South Africa (forced to carry special IDs, forced to live in separate and unequal areas) is true of Israel. Obviously there are huge differences in the level of repression of Israeli Arabs compared to South African blacks, but the basic facts and spirit are the same. As for racist belief, well spend a year in Israel (as I did) researching the state of Israeli Arabs, and you will learn a lot of racism. I interviewed dozens of Israelis, some of them working within the ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for the completely unequal distribution of services, who told me essentially that the Arabs will just waste the money, which is why they don't have proper sewage systems, why their schools are falling apart, why the auto accident rate due to poor roads and night-lighting is so much higher.

A good place to find 3rd party verification of this is the State Department's human rights report. Every year they point out these disparities, and remember that this is a document which has been heavily vetted to not displease Israel too much.

The rest of what you wrote is equally wrong, in my opinion, but since Israeli Arabs are my area of expertise, I will stick to that. I would ask you to look into B'Tselm (an Israeli human rights group) which has shown that time and time again, Israeli attacks in Palestinian areas are in fact designed to provoke the exact same reaction as a terrorist bombing in an Israeli city, and that dozens if not hundreds of innocent civilians have been murdered with not even the cover of the "targeted" asssinsation that you mention.
posted by cell divide at 12:33 PM on May 29, 2006

From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

apartheid :
Function: noun
Etymology: Afrikaans, from Dutch, from apart apart + -heid -hood
Date: 1947

1 : racial segregation; specifically : a policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of So. Africa
2 : separation, segregation (I favor apartheid of smokers— L. E. Bellin) (sexual apartheid)
-----

So Israel is apartheid, period. And America and Europe is supporting an apartheid state, that kill civilians everyday (but not with human bombs but with legal weapons bought by americans tax money).
posted by zouhair at 12:45 PM on May 29, 2006

Oh give it a rest. Of course there are people who will make comments like the one that you mention cell divide, but those people exist everywhere. Israeli Arabs are not forced to live in any specific placve, they are free to live whereever they please, but often choose to segregate themselves, much as there are still ethnic communities in the USA. There is not now nor has there ever been a policy of economic, geographical or political discrimination in Israel. Again, Arabs vote, and Arab parties make up a signifigant number of the seats in the Knesset. Cell divide, I am sure that there are a lot of angry Arabs, but there are also a lot of Jews, who also find reasons to complain about the government, and because they are poor will say that the government treats them unfairly. When you go on a journey looking to for something, you are sure to find it, although you will as a consequence ignore other facts in an effort to prove to yourself that what you think you found actually exists. If you spend a year in Israel looking for proof that Israel abuses human rights, you will find it. If you spend a year looking for proof that Israel affords more rights to its Arab citizens than Arab citizens in any other country in the middle east, you will find that too.

And zouhair, just becuase you quote miriam webster does not make your assertion true. We all know what apartheid means, and that defenition still does not fit with the realities in Israel.
posted by Mister Fyodor at 12:58 PM on May 29, 2006

@Mister Fyodor:

I am not talking about the minority of arabs in Israel, I'm talking of all the imprisoned palestinians in Cisjordan and Gaza Strip, those people have the right to vote??? They live under Israel laws and don't have the right to vote

I won't mention the deported ones, that were thrown away from their lands.

And as may say P&T : "The Democracy In Israel Is BULLSHIT"
posted by zouhair at 1:42 PM on May 29, 2006

You are right zouhair. They didn't vote in Israel. They voted in the Palestinian elections. And they are hardly imprisoned in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. They are there because they choose to be. I suppose the Mexicans are imprisoned in Mexico because there is a boder between the US and Mexico? Israel occupies the West Bank but as is clear they are ready to pull back so that a viable Palestinian state may exist. As Israel urges the Palestinians for peace, the Hamas government wants nothing of the sort, becuase to do so would make themselves irrelevant.

But you can continue to throw around tired arguments if you wish. But I'm done trying to talk sense to the senseless.
posted by Mister Fyodor at 1:56 PM on May 29, 2006

Oh good.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 2:24 PM on May 29, 2006

When Israel retaliates, it occasionally kills civilians, but only because they were in the line of fire of a terrorist official, as opposed to being the targets themselves. Palestinian terror is meant to inspire fear, Israeli military operation is meant to cause difficulties only for the terrorists.

Egads. I have no stake in either side of this debate, but plainly if half of what we hear (from Israel's own soldiers, much of the time) is true, then certainly acts of terrorism are perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, whether or not it is the will of their military commanders. You don't shoot rock throwers nor assassinate a wheelchair-bound figure with a rocket, as part of a measured response to anything (but I fully expect "but they're worse" or "he was a bad, bad man" justifications here, which squarely avoid the point). I'll never understand how terrorism got to be defined in a way that excludes violence with conventional weapons. Of course defining the term according to who is committing the action is half the reason we try to not define it at all.
posted by dreamsign at 2:30 PM on May 29, 2006

Fyodor, are you a lobbyist for the tobacco industry or something? That was fucking fantastic. They choose to live there! The hazards aren't our fault! Besides, you can do as many studies as you want with all those "facts" and "evidence" and come up with whatever answer you want... not that we'd ever do that of course! Israel: you call it human rights abuse. We call it life.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:55 PM on May 29, 2006

One key point about the wall is that it's a land grab: it doesn't run along the pre-1967 border. If it ran along the pre-1967 border, it'd be much easier to justify.

Dreama: Are there a lot of Palestinian Christians blowing themselves up in pizza parlors and busses full of civilian commuters, Jimbob?

A number of notable Palestinian leaders have been Christians, e.g. George Habash.

mr_roboto: I don't know where I stand, politically, on the conflict discussed in this thread. I realize, however, that the political situation is so exquisitely polarized that I can't even think of a good neutral name for the conflict itself. Looking at just the first few comments in this thread, I realize that the tension and polarization involved is just tremendous. And it seems to be getting more and more tense and polarized.

Well said.

William Polk: ... it seems likely to me that we are watching the last act of a long drama, a true tragedy, in which good people are locked in a struggle that, ultimately, will certainly severely harm and may even ruin them both.

The usual name is "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Here's my attempt at a thumbnail sketch of the history.

Hume Horan, writing in February 2002:

... the United States, with its never-equaled political and economic and military might, should peremptorily put a stop to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has already wasted too many lives, taken up too much of our attention, and consumed resources that could have helped move the area forward. It has been too much of a distraction. The expression "confidence-building measures" has a fantastical, even cynical air of unreality to it, at least as applied in the Middle East. The so-called "peace process," has proven to be little more than a diplomatic perpetual-motion machine. It provides excuses for all to keep things on hold. Between Arab anti-Semitism, and Jewish fear of Arab revanchism, no agreement is likely to be reached or to hold unless we take a strong hand.

To us and to many other friends of the region, the outlines of a settlement are pretty clear: they would resemble the Camp David proto-accords. There would be a Palestinian state committed to living in peace with Israel; Israel's West Bank settlements -- a bone in the throat to any peace effort -- would be dismantled. There would be security guarantees for both Israel and the Palestinians. As a corollary to any agreement, there should be measures in place to monitor the sort of Palestinian state that would emerge; one Taliban-dominated state has been enough.

We should work hard to enlist the association and support of our Western allies in this effort. But we should not get bogged down in details. We should ignore and bypass by those who would slow our peace efforts by reviving objections drawn from over 50 years of failed peacemaking. It has been my experience, that when the United States makes it clear to all the world that we are utterly determined that something must be done, reality tends to rearrange itself in a complaisant pattern. Once we do, Arab and Israeli leaders could turn to their populations, and say with a shrug, "What could I do against the might and desire of the United States?"

posted by russilwvong at 4:49 PM on May 29, 2006

Fascinating! I am also supremely interested in what our illiterate garbage collectors and sewage workers have to say about the crisis in Darfur, the plight of whales in the Arctic, and mankind's plans for the colonization of the Solar System.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:06 PM on May 29, 2006

Dear Z--and the 800 thousand Jews expelled from Arab nations? Why would those living under Israeli law because they are on land taken in war be given the same rights as citizens of a nation that fought them to preserve its being? Palestinians are waiting for statehood. But they are not Israel-Arabs, of which there are some one million and non e of whom wants to leave Isreal proper. Why?
posted by Postroad at 5:17 PM on May 29, 2006

So does anyone know which boycott the CUPE group is supporting? There seem to be several boycotts underway, and I'd kind of like to know how big this consumer action is becoming. 200 000 CUPE members is a fair-sized bit of support, and I rather suspect they're not the leading-edge of the movement.

Which is to say that I'm curious whether this boycott has reached a self-sustaining size, like the South Africa one did. For a lotta years there, most everyone I knew wouldn't touch a S.A. product.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:44 PM on May 29, 2006

I asked my (white) South African email buddy how much of a difference the boycotts and world disapproval made, and she said it didn't really. She was in her thirties when they opened up in the '90s, and she said that her generation just knew it was time and that it might mean giving up rather more advantages then they would desire (losing job opportunities - salaries - economy woes, I think she meant), but that it had to be done- she seemed to feel pretty matter-of-factly about it all.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 5:53 PM on May 29, 2006

Jews are in fact well represented among the populations of many Arab countries in the middle east.

Evidently the plan is (evidently) to move the Palestinian 'refugee' population from Israel into the occupied territories while simultaneously expanding Israel's territory into the same regions. It's a classic pincer attack, one that has worked extremely well down throughout history. This one's in slow-motion though.
posted by Sukiari at 2:33 AM on May 30, 2006

"Jews are in fact well represented among the populations of many Arab countries in the middle east. "

I call bullshit. From Wikipedia: Jewish exodus from Arab lands


Jewish Populations of Arab Countries: 1948 and 2001

Country or territory
1948 Jewish

population

Estimated Jewish

population 2001


Aden
8,000
~0


Algeria

140,000
~0


Egypt
75,000-80,000
~100



Iraq
135,000-140,000
~200


Lebanon
5,000

< 100


Libya
35,000-38,000
0


Morocco

250,000-265,000
5,230


Syria
15,000-30,000
~100



Tunisia
50,000-105,000
~1,000


Yemen
45,000-55,000

~200


Total
758,000 - 866,000
<6,500


posted by PenDevil at 4:35 AM on May 30, 2006

Hmm it seems to have stripped out the table tags. Anyway it's read like this:
Tunisia
50,00 -105,000 (population in 1948)
~1,000 (population 2001)
posted by PenDevil at 4:37 AM on May 30, 2006

With more than half a million members across Canada, CUPE represents workers in health care, education, municipalities, libraries, universities, social services, public utilities, transportation, emergency services and airlines.
-Wikipedia Entry

>I am also supremely interested in what our illiterate garbage collectors and sewage workers have to say about...

Wow, ignorant yet elitist at the same time!
I'll bet you can rub your tummy clockwise and pat the top of your head simultaneously, too!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:57 AM on May 30, 2006

Fyodor, I am talking about hard numbers and city services. The average Arab town recieves less then 66% of its equivalent on the Jewish side, and is underfunded by an order of magnitue when it comes to capital investment. This is not about agendas, it's about hard, cold facts which you are shutting your eyes and ears to and screaming "I can't hear you". Also, since a majority of land in Israel is not available to Arabs, they are in fact ghettoized into their existing villages, another reason why towns in the Triangle (one of the larger concentrations of Arabs in Israel) have so many problems with infrastucture, as it is overcrowded. The village of Taibe has over 30,000 residents, no sewage system, and schools which are literally falling apart. This would never happen in a Jewish village in israel, and numerous groups including the US State Department and the Israeli Knesset have made notice of the inequalities and problems. Sadly, little is being done to rectify this.
posted by cell divide at 9:46 AM on May 30, 2006

With more than half a million members across Canada, CUPE represents workers in health care, education, municipalities, libraries, universities, social services, public utilities, transportation, emergency services and airlines.

Ah, well that changes everything! Now it's automatically qualified to give advice of global significance and cosmic stupidity.

Wow, ignorant yet elitist at the same time!
I'll bet you can rub your tummy clockwise and pat the top of your head simultaneously, too!

Let's keep complimenting each other in this fashion, and you'll soon be able to add "crass" to your list.
posted by Krrrlson at 4:40 PM on May 30, 2006

Not qualified - as I said, it's a pretty empty gesture - but there is a lot of them and they're not exactly the troop of knuckle-draggers you made 'em out to be.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:03 PM on May 30, 2006

Ignore Krrrlson. He's the knuckledragger.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:43 AM on May 31, 2006

But not just me! Ignore everyone you disagree with.
posted by Krrrlson at 4:30 PM on May 31, 2006

Ah, well that changes everything! Now it's automatically qualified to give advice of global significance and cosmic stupidity.

CUPE is the union that graduate teachers at the University of Toronto and York belong to -- these are people who are masters and doctoral students, many of them in the humanities and social sciences, who are being paid to research and teach undergraduates about the history and societies of our planet.

I've often disagreed with them, but if they aren't qualified to have an opinion, than no one is.

Or maybe you are one of those people who think that university researchers know nothing about how the world really. If so, please keep yourself and your children out of the universities, because you would be just wasting space there. You can go educate yourselves without having your truthiness tainted by knowledge.

----------------------

cell divide - thank you very much for your comments. From the outside, it is often very hard to understand what is really happening, as it does become very much a "they said, they said" story, and I don't know what to believe.

I was completely shocked when my friend told me that he was treated by the Israeli border authority as if he were not an Israeli citizen - I knew there was descrimination but I thought it was unofficial and/or more subtle. But he does not tend to talk so much about what it is like there.
posted by jb at 4:34 AM on June 1, 2006

But not just me! Ignore everyone you disagree with.

We should ignore you not because we disagree with you, but because you say remarkably stupid things. As several posts have now illustrated, "knuckledraggers" is about as stupid a characterisation of CUPE members as you could possibly have made. I've no idea if you are deliberately trying to troll us, or if you are just plain ol' dumb-beyond-belief, but either way it is far better that we generally post a quick refutation to your idiotic spew, and then more or less ignore you for the rest of the thread.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:43 AM on June 1, 2006

I've often disagreed with them, but if they aren't qualified to have an opinion, than no one is.

"Why do I think that we, the intellectuals, are able to help? Simply because we, the intellectuals, have done the most terrible harm for thousands of years. Mass murder in the name of an idea, a doctrine, a theory, a religion— that is all "our" doing, "our" invention: the invention of the intellectuals. If only we would stop setting man against man— often with the best intentions— much would be gained. Nobody can say that it is impossible for us to stop doing this. " --Popper
posted by Kwantsar at 10:17 AM on June 1, 2006

As several posts have now illustrated, "knuckledraggers" is about as stupid a characterisation of CUPE members as you could possibly have made.

So now you're actually *quoting* me as calling them knuckledraggers? Amazing -- I bet that after five minutes of staring at that picture of Sharon eating babies, you forget it's a cartoon.

I've often disagreed with them, but if they aren't qualified to have an opinion, than no one is.

Apparently if you disagree with them, you aren't entitled to an opinion either, even if you are one of them.

If so, please keep yourself and your children out of the universities, because you would be just wasting space there.

Believe me, you won't see me in any university tainted by the CUPE, and while ultimately it will be my children's personal choice, I will do all I can to dissaude them as well. Their commitment to "knowledge" was especially transparent in the strike that essentially screwed over an entire undergraduate year at York.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:07 PM on June 1, 2006

You're a very odd duck, Krrrlson.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:20 PM on June 1, 2006

Funny enough, I was enrolled at York that year. Strike actions by workers in the public sector is one of the things I disagree with Cupe on.

Though I have to say that York students were less screwed after an 11-week strike than University of Toronto students were after an 8-week strike, because the York admin was much more sensible (not always sensible and flexible enough -- I was in some of the committees dealing with the fall-out) and the striking teachers were more sympathetic. One unionised lecturer allowed me until July to finish an essay, as I was working from May onwards, for which I was very grateful. Another unionised lecturer, a leader in the local even, at UofT refused any flexibility to my friend after their strike, though it happened in the middle of the last term.

The graduate employee locals of CUPE do have seem to have some issues with allowing dissent within - it's a problem I've encountered at other graduate employee unions and proto-unions (groups not yet recognised by law - my word). They do seem to, wrongly, see division within as a weakening of the movement which means a lot to them, leaving them vulnerable to attack. (And in the US, they face a great deal of anti-union strength, particularly from their own government). I think this is wrong, because it turns the union into an echochamber, leaving no place for someone like myself who believes they have a right to unionise, but who is deeply uncomfortable with strike actions that target undergrads. It also loses them a lot of moderate support.

I have only a small some outsider experience talking with some organisers at a CUPE local, so someone who has more experience or who is a member would be much better positioned to talk about what it is really like.

Frankly, I don't trust B’nai Brith on charges of anti-semitism - they are vocally pro-Israel, and assume any criticism of Israel to be anti-semitic, and they exist to fight whatever they percieve as anti-semitism. Of course, when they report that there are more anti-semitic incidents somewhere like Toronto (where there are a lot of Jewish areas and shops) than attacks on other groups, they don't mention that the vast majority of these incidents are non-violent and unfocused graffitti, like a swastika painted on a bus stop. They also don't tell you that homophobic incidents are almost as common, and are usually violent attacks. This is seriously how it was reported in a Canadian paper - "Anti-semitism on the uprise" was the headline, followed by an easy to miss note about how the incidents weren't violent, and that the 90+% of attacks on gays were.)

That said, that has nothing to do with the informed or un-informed nature of their stance on the Israeli Wall project. They have decided - like many of people in the world, Jewish, non-Jewish, atheist, agnostic, whatever - that the wall is an attempt to unfairly and illegally seize land, thus economically beggaring the Palestinian areas and cutting off communication between Palestinian settlements.

Your comment implied that they had no knowledge of the situation, and I just pointed out that if they didn't understand world history and politics well enough to have an informed opinion, then neither do the rest of us and we should all take our balls and go home.
posted by jb at 4:49 AM on June 2, 2006

Strike actions by workers in the public sector is one of the things I disagree with CUPE on.

Me too, except I've been an "insider" for some public union negotiations, and have learned that the BC government (and, I'm pretty sure, Ontario's government) was hell-bent on thoroughly fucking-over their employees.

It's a catch-22 situation: if you make it illegal for public employees to strike, they're inevitably going to be fucked by the government. OTOH, if they are allowed to strike, they piss off everyone else.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:57 AM on June 2, 2006

This is odd - I remembered posting yesterday. Maybe I hit preview, but not post.

Actually, I totally agree. Public employees can be strong armed by their employer as much as any -- and their employers have a lot of reason to strong arm them, considering they are being strong-armed themselves by the tax-payers. Particularly in the high level and skilled areas, they are already paid less than the private sector -- they need the protection of collective bargaining.

But when they strike, they just get all the bad PR, especially if they are in the grey area of not quite but almost necessary services -- teachers, lecturers, transit, healthcare, etc -- where it's the people they serve (not customers - they have no choice to go elsewhere) who are hurt badly, not the employer. When you strike at a car factory, you cost the company money; when you strike at a store, you lose them customers. But when you strike in the public sector, people can't withhold their taxes out of support for you. Students don't get tuition rebates -- the university keeps the students' and the government's money (still three times per student what a student pays) and can be as unreasonable as they like, for however long they like (and the York University admin was totally unreasonable - I supported the admin in Week 1, but their behaviour was such that I had switched sides by Week 11). The lecturers and teachers, meanwhile, go without pay.

I would like to see all public sector employees, including marginally private but really public companies like public transit, be offered binding arbitration like police have. Binding arbitration is the only fair way out of this mess, and really would be better for the workers that the current cycle of strike and vilification.
posted by jb at 3:28 AM on June 4, 2006

A-yup.

In BC we make it one step worse: instead of negotiating directly with the government, the public employees generally have to negotiate with an employer's union. The employer's union is usually composed of middle- and upper-management assholes who are big trying to prove they've got the biggest cock of all. It never goes well.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:02 AM on June 4, 2006