How the mighty have fallen
by: Reb Arie on August 27th, 2009 | 22 Comments »
Tommy Douglas was a United Church minister, a Canadian icon, and the prime mover behind Canada’s universal health care system. He famously said “The trouble with socialists is that they let their bleeding hearts go to their bloody heads“. The United Church, alas, is awash in blood.
The United Church of Canada (UCC) is Canada’s largest Protestant denomination. It has been a major force in the transmisson of the Social Gospel in Canada.
Multiculturalism and universal medicare are perhaps the two most significant differences between the Canadian and American experiencs. The UCC had a committed core of religious activists that fought for both, and both are icons of Canadian identity.
How the mighty have fallen.
The UCC recently had its 40th General Conference meeting. Included among the resolutions was divestment from Israel. That this even made it to the conference floor is shocking, but that’s one of the pitfalls of being a conference-based organisation.
It was publicly asserted by Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) that the passage of these resolutions would have severely damaged Jewish communal relations with the United Church. I was told privately, however, that the relationship would not be damaged — it would cease completely.
This type of tough talk is not typical of the CJC. I applaud them for it.
The vilification of Israel by the far-left is something we in the near-left must fight vigorously. I was never seriously concerned that these idiotic resolutions would pass.
I am much more concerned that they were considered at all: great damage is done by infecting weak minds with strong opinions. It only becomes a matter of time before the weak minds predominate.
Criticism of Israel is fair — and G!d Knows there is much to criticise. The substitution of villification for criticism must not be allowed to occur.
I don’t understand why divestment equals vilification. Divestment, as I see it, is a political tool used to pressure a government toward very specific ends. The campaign to divest from South Africa didn’t rely on or involve the vilification of South Africans — it was a tool that concerned global citizens used to pressure the government to change its policy of apartheid. Israel’s recent attacks in Gaza and its blockade of goods there are undeniably inhumane policies. It seems like divestment might be a useful tool for persuading the conservative forces in the Israeli government that it really is time to start treating the Palestinians with decency.
Thanks for writing. I appreciate thoughtful comments like yours, Emelda.
The boycott campaign never brought South Africa to its knees. South Africa’s most important export was its people. IBM and other multinational corporations could not develop local talent pools because the foolish segregation imposed by South African law made it impossible. Knowledge was exported from South Africa and rarely returned.
Suggesting that South Africa is similar to Israel is simply incorrect.
Divestment is not a political tool, it is an economic tool. This distinction is important and it is lost on left-liberals and the academic postmodernists who commonly call for the strategy. Marketing is also a social science. So is economics. You don’t find these disciplines over-run with postmodernists. You find thoughtful individuals who understand how markets function.
Rather than calling for boycott and divestment a far better strategy would be to encourage investment in cooperative economics. Anyone seeking to invest in Israel should also invest in Palestine. Fair trade certification should be awarded based on the relative investments in each regional economy.
The recent inhumanity of Israeli government policy towards Gaza is not sustainable. I have said this repeatedly. The separation wall is absolutely contrary to halakha (Jewish law) and its continued construction will cause social consequences for Israel that defy forecast.
I agree with Emelda and applaud her for her logical and independent thinking. In relation to equating political activism to anti-semitism, the CJC can’t fool all of the people all the time. I disagree with the writer saying “this type of talk is not typical of the CJC.” Threats and confrontation are their hallmark as they attempt to “criminalizing” any and all critisism of Isreal.
Your remark that “the CJC cannot fool all of the people all of the time” is a slogan. The CJC is a problematic organisation in many ways. We agree on that. I, however, look for solutions to problematics. You look for slogans. I wonder which of us will have more influence? Stop guessing. It will be me.
Why on Earth you’d attempt to give so much power to Congress is beyond me. The CJC does not threaten anyone, has not threatened anyone, and cannot threaten anyone.
Your allegation that Congress “criminalizes” criticism of Israel is another slogan — and absurd. I have many, many criticisms of Congress. That is not one of them.
My criticisms come from involvement with Congress. Have you volunteered with Congress? Have you attended interfaith and multifaith meetings? Have you assisted small Jewish communities organise Holy Day activities, Passover seders, or bar mitzva celebrations?
Congress finds dissent difficult to digest. Congress is often an organisation in search of a mission. Congress has allowed itself to be overtaken in various communal re-organisations. Congress has lost relevance as the J-comm in Canada has federated.
I would say that your criticism is valid with respect to B’nai Brith, so long as you say that BB “stifles” criticism of Israel — which it most assuredly does. BB is a shadow of its former self and is a laughing stock among seasoned Jewish activists in Canada. None of us take it seriously.
It would appear we agree more than we disagree. You just don’t like my choice of words. So be it.
I have participated regularly in many Jewish Holy Day activities including the ones you mention above as well as Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Chanukah. If you’re wondering which one of us knows and understands more of the other’s religion, stop guessing – it’s me.
You have missed my point. Canadian Jewish Congress has had a long and important role to play in the Canadian Jewish community. Among its most important roles was helping small Jewish communities build and sustain cohesive programs. Congress has also being very important in the development of interfaith and multicultural relationships.
That I am not directly supportive of Congress should not be taken to mean that I do not have respect for them. Congress is well-known to be quite the opposite of your portrayal. Far, far from the stifling force you seem to think it, Congress more often stifles itself when, for example, it denies the participation of dissenting organisations; it thus loses a great deal of credibility among activists such as Reb Arie who would otherwise be quite willing to affiliate.
The vilification of Israel by the far-left is something we in the near-left must fight vigorously. I was never seriously concerned that these idiotic resolutions would pass.
Not quite sure I qualify as part of your “we” here. I’m featuring in this week’s Tikkunista!! a detailed look at why the BDS campaign is growing and gaining converts, including folks such as Neve Gordon who are neither superficial vilifiers of Israel, nor “weak minds”. Nor would I call Naomi Klein a weak mind….
Last week, at a wedding I talked to a number of United Church Ministers about the motion (which of course brought forward by IJV, an organization of which we are both members, nu?). Their feeling was that the resolutions would be back with more support next time. This doesn’t mean they’ll be (or should be passed) but I would NOT say this story is over.
You say, “Suggesting that South Africa is similar to Israel is simply incorrect.” There are huge differences between the two countries, but to me there are also significant similarities. Both are significantly more advanced than their neighbours as military and economic powers. Apartheid South AFrica was controlled by immigrants (over a few generations) whose laws enforced a significantly inferior status on indigenous residents. And while BDS was not the only reason that SA changed from its apartheid system, it increased the pressure on the leaders that led Botha to eventually institute realchange.
Welcome back, Peter. We would differ, I think, on how to define “weak mind”. Naomi and Neve are young political intellectuals; they are critical but they are not critical thinkers. This is no less true of the political right than of the political left. And what Naomi and Neve leave out of their analysis is that BDS is not a political solution. It is an economic solution, and it is a stupid economic solution.
I believe the world trade community should impose Fair Trade certification control points on Israel and Palestine both. Investment in Israel should require investment in Palestine and vice-versa. The investment should be audited to prove that specific international standards of fair labour and fair trade are in place. Such standards must include labour mobility.
My sources in the United Church and Congress both agree with you: the resolutions will re-assert themselves.
I am not a member of Independent Jewish Voices (IJV). After my experience at the IJV general meeting I made a specific decision that IJV does not desire to be part of the reasoned discourse of the Jewish community.
Israel was certainly controlled by an immigrant elite prior to the 1980s — and that remains the only analog to South Africa. Fascism led to the economic and military domination of the African southlands. Israel’s economic domination was due to an educated cadre of Western intellectuals and its military domination was imposed upon it by American interests in containing Soviet influence in SW Asia during the Cold War. The constant threat of destruction by hostile Arab nations, while it makes for great heart-tugging storytelling, is nonsense.
“young political intellectuals”? I think, dear friend, you suffer from the same disease I do, as “young” continues to redefine itself. Neve is 44, whatever we call that.
I am enough of a marxist to argue that economics is political and politics are economic. That said, I like your proposal of requiring mutual investment, fair trade certification, and labour mobility. My problem with those proposals is that as an individual how I spend my dollar is something over which I have control. I can choose not to buy Chinese goods, or Israeli, or whatever. Sadly, my ability to compel the world trade community to take action on a number of issues (climate change, first) seems to have slipped away somewhat.
I do not think we can argue about IJV, either. :-)
I see more similarities with SA than you do: the restriction of the oppressed on bantustans, small disconnected areas from which they cannot leave without monitoring and control; the division of people into two groups by arbitrary and unchangeable lines (race vs religion). I certainly recognize that Israelis are neither a race nor genetically that different from the Palestinians. But the dual standards for what is really a single group of people is sadly analogous
My fingers can’t seem to hit the right keys today. Perhaps lunch will help. Good to back here.
Anyone who I am old enough to have baby sat is young.
We have the mechanisms to impose discipline on markets. They are the same mechanisms used by those who advocate BDS. Convincing the United Church to invest strategically is far more practical than imposing stupid economics that are more slogans than solutions.
What you see as similarities to South Africa I see as analogs to Canada. How is a bantustan different than a First Nations reservation? How is it different, for that matter, than the caravan grounds that have so long been tolerated in parts of Europe?
Reb Arie,
Cooperative economics is a theoretical solution like most of your proposed solutions. It can work if “Palestine” is not under occupation and siege. You seem to forget the occupation and siege, two facts that are central to any of your “solutions”.
As an aside, Israel as the occupying power (I don’t know if it can be defined as a state yet, because the original borders are long gone) controls all things animate or inanimate both in Israel and the occupied territories all around.
I would like to echo Peter Marmorek: Economics is political and politics are economics.
Regards,
Chris
We certainly agree that the Israeli military must withdraw and let legitimate security forces control Palestine. As for Aza (Gaza), an international force under the control of a neutral middle power should supervise the destruction of Hamas military capability while political, legal and economic experts from the EU and African Union assist in the establishment of legitimate organs of state authority. Aza is far more of the African sphere than of the Asian and should not be considered part of Palestine. Ideally it should be an autonomous part of Mizr (Egypt). If that’s not practical it should internationalised under Afro-Euro supervision until such time as a stable democracy evolves, at which point it could seek political solutions to political issues.
Fervent leftists believe everything is political, Chris. I’m not a fervent leftist. All you need to do is look at Canada to see how the stupidity of politicians has damaged the Canadian economy. And we’re lucky — look what’s happened in the USA, where you spend a great deal of time doing your deals. I can accept your comments as rhetoric, but I don’t see how you can hold them to be true.
You are right Arie on the need to withdraw from the Palestinian territories occupied after June 4, 1967. But we should recall that HAMAS is a relatively recent Islamic movement, initially supported by Israel to counteract the increasingly secular Fatah movement in the late 70′s. I would add that that was a stroke of folly on the part of Israeli strategists, because now they are looking to get Fatah to destroy Hamas, with the help of the IDF.
Having said that, the solution of having “legitimate security forces” is impractical as it is unworkable. Firstly, withdrawal means a “Sovereign Palestinian State”, secondly, a state would have the right to have an army, a police force and a intelligence services, all crucial components of any state’s national security needs, and thirdly, a state would presumably hold elections to form governments.
So what if Hamas gets elected again?!! does this mean that Israel should go to war against its neighbour because it does not agree with the people’s choice?
As you put it, the destruction of HAMAS, and I would add, all other religion based paramilitary movements and even states is desirable, but I hasten to add that this is entirely up to the people afflicted with such regressive governance, Palestinians included.
We would not be serving the cause of democracy anywhere if we aspire otherwise.
Regards,
Chris
For those who are unaware, Chris is using HAMAS because this is an Arabic acronym for حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, which translates to Islamic Resistance Movement. The root words are also known to Hebrew but they have different connotations. Something common to both languages, however, is that Ḥamas means “violence”, thus the acronym is also a meaningful word in Hebrew and Arabic.
What you assert, Chris, with respect to Palestine does not equate to Aza (Gaza). Palestine is an Asian nation and I think that Fatah, for all its many faults, has made huge progress. Aza remains in the African sphere of influence, as it has been for thousands of years. It is, furthermore, ungovernable. It should be a ward of the African Union with strong input from the EU.
The people of Aza need access to a government that is is motivated to construction of infrastructure, not destruction of a perceived enemy. How practical would Israel’s absurd Aza policy remain if an 80 nation block of democracies and emerging democracies, supplemented by a strong multinational force of peacekeepers with broadly-based civil police powers in addition to military capability, guaranteed the good order and governance of Aza?
HAMAS translated as a word on its own in Arabic means “fervor” or “zeal”, it does not mean violence, however. The correct acronym for Harakat Al-muqauamah Al-Islamiyyah in Arabic is actually HMIS. But in arabic, it sounds like Hamas because of the way it is written. Consequently, if we use the correct acronym HMIS, then this would have no meaning whatsoever. HMIS=Harakat Muqawamah (Is)lamiyyah
Very interesting. I had assumed that since the acronym was the same as the Hebrew pronunciation that it must mean the same thing. It always fascinates me how the same roots have different meanings even as you can trace the relationship. “Fervour” or “zeal” are not far removed from “violence” but obviously have very different meanings.
Even so, it’s obvious to any Hebrew speaker than
Hamas is sending a message with its name. It could call itself
Ham Islami’ya just as easily and convey the image of being heated and Muslim without conveying that it is predatory and seeking the violent destruction of Israel.
Hamas is not seeking violent destruction of Israel. It is seeking an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.
Fortunately, other groups partake in the same right of resistance to the occupation. Hamas happen to be the largest media attraction because of its election victory in the legislative. Prior to that, its social and political organisation work on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank gave it notoriety. Islam makes it a duty to resist an occupier. In International law, it is the right of the occupied.
We fundamentally disagree on this matter. I will admit to you that Hamas is spiritually-based. But to suggest that it does not seek the destruction of Israel? Chris, you do know better. You somehow seem to think that Sheikh Ahmed Yassin is the reincaranation of Salah ad-Din. Would that it were so!
As to the right of resistance to occupation…
Hamas less asserts a right of resistance than it does an obligation to establish an Islamic state. You are a Christian, Chris — what place do you anticipate the Copts would have in a Hamas-led nation where the primary goal is to restore the caliphate?
Hamas’ position has evolved. Their latest, publicly and diplomatically recognized political position is that they would recognize Israel if the latter withdraws to the June 4, ’67 lines, lifts the siege on Gaza, and recognize the emerging Palestinian state.
Repeating to mention their old manifesto does not help the situation. That “paper” can easily be changed when the occupation is dismantled. They will not go through this motion while the occupation continues.
Cheers
The Hamas position on Israel has evolved? Interesting, Chris. Then explain this:
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency runs schools for 200,000 Gazan children, and has added a new textbook that deals with the Holocaust for Grade 8 students. Hamas called the systematic murder of Jews during the Holocaust “a lie invented by the Zionists” and said it would “refuse to let our children study” it.
The Associated Press quotes Hamas religious leader Younis al-Astal, who called the teaching of the Holocaust to Palestinian children a “war crime”.
And you would claim this movement is a fit partner for peace?
I stand by my editorial opinion. Aza (Gaza) should be put under joint EU-African Union trusteeship, a multinational force should guarantee security, and the Azan population should be eventually introduced to the democratic evolution of political and economic systems that will allow the people there to flourish.
The Palestinians Reb Arie cannot believe a Zionist state that claims to represent the Jewish people, is perpetrating a similar, albeit slower holocaust against them. Israel must set the record straight by abandoning its Nazi like treatment of Palestinians. The only way for Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace as equals is for both people to recognize their common humanity. That can only happen if the occupation and illegal settlements came to an end.
As I United Church member, I would love to claim Tommy Douglas as one of our own. However, he was a Baptist.(Check your link).