Churches condemn Israel barrier

[bemildred]

The World Council of Churches (WCC) has called on Israel to stop "and reverse" the building
of a controversial separation barrier in the West Bank.

The council, which brings together more than 300 Christian churches outside the Roman
Catholic movement, said the barrier violated both the UN Charter and international law.

The WCC, which has just ended a three-day meeting of its executive committee in Geneva,
Switzerland, called on all its churches and their ecumenical partners to "condemn the wall as
an unlawful annexation which should not be recognised by any state".

The council recognised what it called Israel's "serious and legitimate security concerns" but
pointed out the obstacles it presented for Palestinians trying to get to their place of work or to
essential services like schools and hospitals.

ABC NET AU

Link to original WCC press release here:

http://www2.wcc-coe.org/pressreleasesen.nsf/index/pu-04-11.html

[brainshrub]

1. While I agree with the sentiment of the WCC

I think Churches have no right to tell Jews what to do. They lost the moral high-ground after the first pogrom.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

18. So

If roving gangs of Jews went around kicking puppies, Christians couldn't say this was wrong? :P

[brainshrub]

24. Depends. Are they building a wall around the puppies in question?

On Edit: Are they playing this game

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/games/7/

[Malva Zebrina]

2. I have my opinons on this issue

of this horrendous wall that has been erected.

They are not popular here on DU as any criticism of these facts seems to be labeled, "anti-semitism" even if there is honesty in critquing the policies of
Sharon , Israel and others.

Well, go right along--we cannot speak of the atrocity of the "wall". either in today's Israel or in the past Warsaw Ghetto walls without trepidation, that is, without a consideration that these views will be censored here, no matter if they are fact or truth.


It is anti-semitism to criticize the Jews and their policies or hypocricies toward others. Or the irony of this erected wall in a culture that has seen walls, and has seen separation and has seen prejudice against those who are not the "same" ?

Huh? Here we have the same thing going on. Right here on
DU.

Is it "anti-semitism" to point that out? Or is it simply an observation of the total brutality of man against man, no matter what the time or no matter what the beliefs re the religion.

They all seem to revert back to barbarism as far as I am concerned

Delete this mods.

It will not change a thing as far as perceptions go.

These things need to be discussed and if it is painful to some who are so involved in fundamentalist religious beliefs then , well then, simply delete it and charge it up to a poster's "bad posts" scorecard for being "anti-semitic"

[Darranar]

4. Two things...

They are not popular here on DU as any criticism of these facts seems to be labeled, "anti-semitism" even if there is honesty in critquing the policies of Sharon , Israel and others.

That very rarely happens, and when it does the mods are quick to delete.

It is anti-semitism to criticize the Jews and their policies or hypocricies toward others. Or the irony of this erected wall in a culture that has seen walls, and has seen separation and has seen prejudice against those who are not the "same"

Who exactly gave you the idea that these are the policies of "the Jews"? Since when were "the Jews" synonomous with Sharon or Likud?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

12. Sharon represents "the Jews" about as much as Bush...

represents the Baptists.

Yes, Sharon was elected Prime Minister of Israel. Calling his policies the policies of Israel, or the Israelis, would be perfectly okay. But not all Jews are Israelis, nor are all Israelis Jews.

There are plenty of Jews who disagree with Sharon's policies, myself included.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. but he was elected with a vast majority

am I right about that?and since that is so, is it wrong to conclude that most Israelis, approve of Sharone's policies and this terrible symbol of oppression, this wall?

[_Jumper_]

37. Only about 1/3 of Jews are Israelis

Why lump them together?

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Okay . . .

I though Sharon represented the Jews.

Being Prime Minister of Israel does make Sharon the Jewish Pope. There is no such thing. Sharon is the head of the government of the state of Israel. Jews, both inside and outside of Isreal, are as free to hold differences of opinion with Mr. Sharon as are the rest of us.

[Malva Zebrina]

16. I know that

but he did win with a majority, right? and a large majority, right?

[Jack Rabbit]

20. He did

However, there is no mandate that any freely elected leader can receive that would exempt him from criticism. Bush may think he is above criticism, but he is not a freely elected leader; he lost the last election. But I digress . . .

Sharon's mandate was bring peace and security to Israel. He has failed in this respect. He came to power three years ago when Israel was facing a rash of terrorist attacks following the collapse of the Oslo process. The attacks continued. In April 2002, Sharon sent the IDF into the West Bank in an attempt to reassert authority. The attacks continued. Sharon is now building a wall to keep terrorists out. As this project is not yet complete, we must reserve judgment as to whether this measure has been successful or not. As we saw today, there are still attacks.

Israel has a legitimate concern with security. Few, if any, who frequnet this board question Israel's need for security or her right to build a wall to enhance that security. The question is simply whether that barrier should built where Sharon is building or whether it should be built closer to the Green Line, which is for all intents and purposes Israel's border with the West Bank.

[Taeger]

5. Not anti-semitism !!!!

I'm am "pro-wall" but I don't consider the contrary to be anti-semitism. The one thing has nothing to do with the other.

[Taeger]

3. Fences make good neighbors

The parts along the traditional accepted barrier are just fine in my book. They have a right to protect Israel from people who desire to blow themselves up in the presence of Israelis.

I DO NOT abide by their building portions of the fence INTO and DIVIDING Palestinian communities. That's a bunch of shit.

[IconoclastIlene]

7. Yes, good fences..

Good fences dofor good neighbors do make.

[IconoclastIlene]

6. Let Israel Take Care of Herself, thank you.

I don't think that any of the ideas expounded here are in the interests of Israel and as should, should be ignored.

[Darranar]

9. So all that matters are the "interests of Israel"?

[Malva Zebrina]

11. but when we support it with our money

does it not seem fair that we question that?

[IconoclastIlene]

34. Because it is the decent thing to do.

For the sake of human decency, of course, which there is not a whole lot of in this world; let Israel live in peace and give a group of people who have been excoriated for centuries, the land that they were run out of.

Let Israel be and pick on someplace else. There are plenty of atrocities going on in the whole continent of Africa, but yet the average dull normal still wants to provoke Israel and fan the flames of anti-semitism. On top of it, having the gall to feel as though they (anti-semites) don't exist and that Israel is unreasonable in trying to protect herself. Bullshit on that!!!

Here in our own USA, we are trying to put up borders all along the coast of Mexico to keep foreigners from illegally settling here. If it is our best interests..how can this double standard exist?

Are we all one? Are we the family of man? Not in this lifetime, sweethearts..not in this lifetime.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. The WCC's own headline is misleading

As the headline reads, one would expect them to be opposed to any wall. However, the position they actually adopt appears to be identical to one adopted by many, including this poster.

From the press release that accompanies the WCC statement:

The executive committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) has issued a powerful appeal to the Israeli government demanding that they "stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories".
The "construction and location" of the Israeli wall on occupied Palestinian territory is a "violation of the Charter of the United Nations and fundamental principles of international law", says the WCC executive committee in a statement adopted during its 17-20 February 2004 meeting in Geneva. . . .
The statement "strongly condemns the violations of human rights and humanitarian consequences" of the barrier. The resulting obstacles in accessing workplaces, farmland, health services and schools among others, constitute a violation of the rights to liberty of movement, work, adequate standard of living including housing, health care, education and equality before the law . . . .
The creation of this "new political boundary", which extends "Israeli civilian and military presence inside Palestinian territory", undermines "all peace-making efforts and most importantly the whole concept of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state established side by side by the state of Israel", says the committee.
The WCC executive committee statement acknowledges that "Israel has serious and legitimate security concerns" and recognises Israel’s "right and duty to protect its people against attacks and suicide bombers inside the state of Israel, without contravening international law and jeopardising longer term prospects for peace".
It also acknowledges "Palestinian people's right to resistance against the Israeli occupation inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories, without resorting to terror and creating indiscriminate fear among civilians" inside the state of Israel.
The WCC executive committee reaffirms its "strong conviction that non-violent means of resistance and peaceful negotiations are the only way to achieve a lasting, viable solution to the Arab- Israeli conflict".

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Comadreja]

19. Dayan on Israeli settlement

We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of the Arab villages Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of these villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages do not exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu’a in the place of Tel Shamam. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village."
- Moshe Dayan, former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces and former Defence Minister of the State of Israel (March 19, 1969, in a speech to students at the Technion ; quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969).

[Malva Zebrina]

21. Can you please tell me what is the purpose of your post

I would really like to know. I would really like to understand this .

It seems to me that Israel has indulged in a form of genocide, against the people that were in that land for centuries. Their homes were destroyed as well as the continured destruction of their homes by bulldozers and as well as the plundering of thier farms.

The onus is on Israel to take the moral upper hand as Israel has the military weapons and the nukes, paid for by by the money of the US. That is we the taxpayers.

The Palestinians have nothing, and want nothing except their own land to grow their children and families and to survive as human bieng with human dignity and rights.

Can you please tell me how this wall is justified and further can you please tell me how a nation that is inhabited by descendants of the holocaust can justify doing almost the same thing re ghettos to others as was done to them under Hitler?

Does that not seem to you to be exceptionally crude or exceptionally crass re the persecution of others? I mean it. It seems to me that the holocaust should have offered a lesson of some sort in the human being's treatment of other human beings. It has not. We see a fifteen foot wall erected by the Israeli people to keep others not of their thinking and beliefs, out of their territory.

I would really like to know this. The holocuast was horrible, the Warsaw ghetto was horrible, and most of Hitler's treatment of the Jews was horrible, atrocious and unbelievable that human beings could treat other human beings in this way.

and here, we have that nation that was persecuted in that way,by Hitler, doing almost the same thing as far as containing it's "enemies" the Palestinians--who have no military at all, no nukes, no army , navy or airforce and they are being bulldozed out of their farms and homes. Please tell me how this man's inhumanity to man is justified and why the holocaust in all it's horrific evil did not leave it's specific message on those who suffered. They have forgotten that message, imo.

It seems they are doing the same to me to others now that they have nukes and have power in the form of a military--OK no ovens but this wall? Why this symbol of oppression? Is this what Israel wants itself to be perceived as? The great wall builder? Hey, they should read Robert Frost.

A wall keeps others out as well as keeps the builders of the wall "in"

[IconoclastIlene]

35. Because even Hitler and his followers didnt blow themselves up.

Because many of the factions of the PLO have no regard for human life at all, and because terrorism is their career, I am afraid that this use of a wall has been the price that extremists pay for their cowardly acts.

I don't see a problem with defending oneself. If Mexican Americans, for instance,(and only for instance, please) started using suicide/homicide bombings in the USA, in order to have their agendas met, just what do you think would happen?

BE HONEST!!!

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Classic DU reality

People on DU spend a great deal of time maligning churches, religions and the religious. (Nope, not a criticism of DU, just a fact.) But let some church group or even the pope say what they want to hear, suddenly they are quoting them.

My response, who cares?

[bemildred]

23. Who cares about what?

It is not clear to me from your post what
it is you don't care about.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Who cares?

I think the gist of what he was saying was that if someone is to disagree with church groups on one or some issues, they must then disagree with them on everything. It seems to be an all or nothing approach that excludes people actually being able to think rationally over specific issues and coming to a conclusion as to whether they agree or disagree with the church groups in these specific cases. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I strongly disagree with the stance of the Catholic Church on abortion and birth control, but agree with it on issues like AIDS and the death penalty. Being an atheist, I guess I should put the thinking cap away and turn myself into a sheeple that just bleats away disagreeing with anything any church group has to say based on the sole fact that it's a church group saying it...

Baaaaaa...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Who cares what those churches think

It was obvious.

[bemildred]

40. Thank You.

I am reminded of a story told in my math classes from time to
time, of a Professor giving a lecture, and stating that "It is
obvious that ......", meanwhile writing it out on the blackboard.
He then stopped and looked at what he had written and thought
for a bit, then he walked over to another blackboard and spent
thirty minutes working out a proof of the statement. Looking
very satisfied with himself, he them walked back over to the
original blackboard and resumed: "Now, as I was saying, it is
obvious that ..."

In this case, since you seem religious, I was reluctant to assume
that you intended to dismiss all 300 of these churches, or perhaps
their representatives in this organization, and considered that it
might just be their position on this issue that you were dismissing.

I appreciate your clarification.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Yes, I am religious

And I follow my religion. Do religious groups always get it right? No. They have a tendency to believe in the goodness of people and, with the multiplicity of terror groups, that doesn't apply.

[Jim Sagle]

25. WCC SUXXXX, and the Peace Fence RAWWWWKS!!!!

The Peace Fence...making the world a better place, one brick at a time.

[JasonDeter]

30. I'm watching C-Span now and Ahmed Qureia is whining about the Peace Fence

I changed the channel.

[sushi]

33. Rubbish

The WCC has a point, and that ugly fence is not the way to peace.

[IconoclastIlene]

36. If Israel wants a fence....

who are we to say if they need it or not. Did we let other countries tell us how to defend ourselves with regard to Afganistan and Iraq? No, despite protests all the world over, we managed to wage war in Iraq over a vendetta between George Sr., and Saddam, and have allowed in excess of 500 Americans die for this cause.

I think we should mind our own business and clean up our own backyard before telling other groups of people to do as I say, not as I do.

Double standards are a bitch!!!

Madame B.

[sushi]

42. Israel can build a dozen fences

on its own land. Then nobody can say anything.

[Jim Sagle]

39. All we are saying is, give the Peace Fence a chance.

[sushi]

43. How can you associate

that fence with peace?

It separates people from their workplaces and schools, it cuts through people's farmland and olive groves, it makes daily life even more miserable for so many. It makes people angrier, and their hate deeper. And you call it a peace fence?

[JasonDeter]

27. I think the other name for the WCC is

the church of the frozen chosen. They are for the most part man's opinion only and have nothing to do with what God wants. Otherwise they would in no way chastise Israel. Christians who understand God's word and Israel's place in God's plan don't criticize Israel but completely support her. The Democrats do and for political purposes the republicans lately have tried to jump on board. The great failure of the republicans is they put conditions on support for Israel. That is a terrible error on their part.

[Forkboy]

28. God doesn't want anyone to chastise Israel?

next time you speak to God to find out what he wants could you ask him to get in touch with me? I have a few questions for him...

[JasonDeter]

29. All the answers you need regarding God and Israel can be found here

Romans Chapter 9, 10 and especially 11 are pretty much His final words on the subject of Israel. He has been asked many times, 'Is that your final answer?" And each time He says yes.

[Forkboy]

31. I'll pass

I dont think we should decide policy based on works of fiction.

[_Jumper_]

38. Do you support slavery?

"God" also backs slavery? Do you?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. What about abortion?

god never did have anything to say about abortion, so I'd be shocked to see those who think the word of their god is the final word on things calling abortion genocide or any such silly thing :)


Violet...