Anglican group urges Israel sanctions

[Englander]

By Sarah Price Brown, Los Angeles Times | June 24, 2005

LONDON -- The worldwide association of Anglican churches will consider a controversial report today that calls for companies in its investment portfolios to drop any business activity supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

The Anglican Consultative Council, the association's policymaking body, will discuss at its 10-day meeting underway in Nottingham whether to recommend the proposal to the Anglican Communion. The communion is composed of 77 million members belonging to the Church of England, the US Episcopal Church, and three dozen related churches.

It was not immediately clear how much money might be involved.

More at;
Boston Globe

[Oversea Visitor]

1. See Chimp

Thats is what happen when you go fooling around people religion for politics
Isreal would say thank you chimp

[Burried News]

2. They are following the lead of the Presbyterians & Methodists

A fine example of news that will be burried.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Perchance they would be better following the lead of the Unitarians

Putting pressure on both sides and leading by example and good works.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Where's the fairness and even handedness?

Reference is made to my append in the thread.

I again ask - where were the Good Church people during the years of "Jim Crow" practiced against Jewish people - whose only juristic tie to Israel was by some Nuremberg Law type of connection, (perpetual hiring freeze on Jewish Job Applicants - except in response to court orders). This Jim Crow boycott is blatantly illegal - as the linked legal opinion, most clearly shows. The silence of the Good Church People is deafening.

[pie]

5. This by itself will not git her done, but it's a start

[Coastie for Truth]

6. An equally good reciprocal start

would be to close down the Arab League Boycott Office - and make a specific announcement that the Arab League Boycott does not apply to Diaspora Jews.

The Arab League Boycott as applied to "Jim Crow" actions against US citizens (by birth, born to US citizens "by birth") with no nexus to Israel except by some stretch of the Nuremberg Racial Purity Laws, by US Corporations for employment in US operations is illegal, see which I have previously linked to.

It would be an act of "good faith" to relax the "Jim Crow" Arab League Boycott. At least the secondary and tertiary boycotts.

[not systems]

7. I don't see how this is different than the US embargoing trade...

with Iran, Cuba or in the past the USSR.

It appears that they are refusing to business with companies
that do business with Israel.

How is that different that any number of past and present US embargoes?

You keep posting this but I just don't see what it has
to do with the "Nuremberg Racial Purity Laws" or any number
of other assertions you have made about it.

From your link:

The Arab boycott, in existence for nearly half a century, operates at three levels: primary, secondary and tertiary. The primary boycott is a refusal by Arab states to conduct any economic relations with Israel. The secondary boycott denies Arab business to firms that materially contribute to Israel's economic and technological development. Such firms are, in effect, "blacklisted" by Arab states. The tertiary boycott involves a denial of trade with firms that have business ties with blacklisted companies.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Response

An appender has asked

"You keep posting this but I just don't see what it has
to do with the "Nuremberg Racial Purity Laws" or any number
of other assertions you have made about it."

and cited the to the .

I am not going to opine or give my interpretation of the facts. I would suggest some Googling for the Legislative History of both the Export Administration Act ("EAA"), and the Tax Reform Act of 1976 ("TRA").

Suffice it to say that the industry has used the terms and condition of the Secondary Boycott as a means to deny employment to professionally qualified technical, professional, and scientific workers based on ethnicity, citing the Secondary Boycott as the reason.

These companies have routinely fought court orders (you would have to search on Lexis - a subscription and password service) - and they have hired "tokens."

Your interest is appreciated.

[not systems]

9. So your main problem is that companies in the US...

have discriminated against US citizens in order preserve
their relationships with the boycotting countries?

I can understand that is discrimination on the part of the
US companies who didn't hire US citizens to please the
boycotting countries.

They could have suspended business with the boycotters.

This sort of thing happens all the time to foreign contractors
with regard to US defense contracts baring citizens of certain
states, do they have a valid complaint about discrimination?

Based on US policy?

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Append 9 mixes apples and oranges and hides the ball

The append states:

"So your main problem is that companies in the US... have discriminated against US citizens in order preserve
their relationships with the boycotting countries?

I can understand that is discrimination on the part of the
US companies who didn't hire US citizens to please the
boycotting countries.

They could have suspended business with the boycotters.

This sort of thing happens all the time to foreign contractors
with regard to US defense contracts baring citizens of certain
states, do they have a valid complaint about discrimination?

Based on US policy?"

which is a totally obfuscatory red herring.


A blanket Jim Crow prohibition to bring pressure to bear on a country that may be "ethnically" linked to a job applicant can not be conflated with a project specific, job specific citizenship requirement for defense contracts. A real argument for their clients. And the Federal Courts and the EEOC agree with the job seekers - not with Mr. Baker.

Moreover, the position totally disregards the scholarship in The Economic War Against the Jews by Walter Henry Nelson Nelson and Terrence Prittie, among others.

[not systems]

11. Wow. I did all that?

Actually, I don't have a position here I'm am just trying
to understand the argument your making about the boycott.

I see your posts about it over and over and frankly have never
understood the point you are making about it.

I still don't.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Reply again

11. Wow. I did all that?
Actually, I don't have a position here I'm am just trying
to understand the argument your making about the boycott.

I see your posts about it over and over and frankly have never
understood the point you are making about it.

I still don't.

The heart of the Secondary Boycott has been the refusal of major players in the world wide petroleum to hire and promote ethnically Jewish employees.

Looking at the numerous lists of "Friendly Employers" (Female Friendly, Gay Friendly, Family Friendly, African-American Friendly, etc.), the petroleum industry is not the most "friendly" industries for anybody. But more unfriendly for some.

Well into the era following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1944, the Export Administration Act ("EAA"), and the Tax Reform Act of 1976 ("TRA"), the oil industry used to specify religious and racial restrictions in its dealings with University Placement Offices. After the passage of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Export Administration Act ("EAA"), they did hire "tokens" (including African-Americans, etc.).

I first "really" learned of the "boycott" from my chem.e. faculty adviser as an undergrad.

Well described in The Economic War Against the Jews by Walter Henry Nelson Nelson and Terrence Prittie.

Don't rely on me - do some research.

[not systems]

13. Is your point that the boycott is invalid or that...

the response and complicity of US companies is.

It seems that if the point of the boycott was to punish
and weaken Israel then it was or is effective.

If an American company discriminated against an American
because of this then the problem is with the US company not
boycott itself, right?

If an American Zionist was punished by the boycott it seems
as though the boycott was hitting the intended mark.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Further response

Is your point that the boycott is invalid or that ... the response and complicity of US companies is.

1. Boycotts are generally ineffective and counter productive. The boycott of South Africa is sui generis.

2. Most of our boycotts of munitions exports have been a dismal failure, as the "targets" have either bought elsewhere - or developed their own munitions industries.

It seems that if the point of the boycott was to punish and weaken Israel then it was or is effective.

How do you define success? A success if it forced Israel to spend more money or divert efforts to obtain certain assets. A failure if success means "denying" those assets to Israel.

If an American company discriminated against an American because of this then the problem is with the US company not boycott itself, right?

The US company has violated US law and has subjected itself and its officers and directors to civil and criminal liability.

If an American Zionist was punished by the boycott it seems as though the boycott was hitting the intended mark.

It seems you are conflating "Jewish person" with "Zionist." How does a "Born In The USA" US citizen, born to "Born in the USA US Citizens" who are in turn children of Naturalized US Citizens of Eastern European birth, and who has never lived, worked, or studied in Israel, suddenly an "American Zionist" who is a lawful "intended mark." Please see , viz:

"Do not use the term "Zionist" to mean "Jew" or "Israeli." Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli".

Besides, you may be inferring and assuming incorrectly; for all you know I may have substantial Polish Catholic ancestry (Jewishness is matrilineal, we do not have "honor killings" of our women, and many of the female survivors of pogroms were raped.).

I do know my "hic haec hoc, hujus hujus hujus ..." and "Gallia in tres partes divisus est...." and I like Wilno's Kosher Polish sausage, and I love hot pepper vodka.-- My Polish RC genes.

[not systems]

15. I was referring to your statements that you have been directly...

affected by the boycott and your statement that you are a Zionist.

Both statements you have made multiple times.

I was not referring to a generic person of Jewish origin
but you and your own direct experience with the boycott.

I make no assumptions about your ethnic background.

I can understand your being upset about being targeted by
the boycott and losing opportunities because of it but if
affecting Israel and supporters of Zionism was the goal of
the boycott then in this case it appears to have had it's
desired affect.

I also think you should be able to get redress if you
can prove that a US company discriminated against you
because of their complicity in the boycott.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Further response

15. I was referring to your statements that you have been directly...

affected by the boycott and your statement that you are a Zionist.

Both statements you have made multiple times.

I was not referring to a generic person of Jewish origin
but you and your own direct experience with the boycott.

I make no assumptions about your ethnic background.

I can understand your being upset about being targeted by
the boycott and losing opportunities because of it but if
affecting Israel and supporters of Zionism was the goal of
the boycott then in this case it appears to have had it's
desired affect.

I also think you should be able to get redress if you
can prove that a US company discriminated against you
because of their complicity in the boycott.

In point of fact - I have always posted that I support a two state solution - with massive foreign aid to Palestine - from the west, from Israel, from the Diaspora, and from the mineral industry exploiters of the Palestinian and Bedouin proletariat. Maybe it's pay back time for the the mineral industry exploiters of the Palestinian and Bedouin proletariat to "pay back" the Palestinian and Bedouin proletariat.

As to you observation "if affecting Israel and supporters of Zionism was the goal of the boycott then in this case it appears to have had it's desired affect." -- maybe it has had the opposite effect - the best revenge is to do well. :)

As to your comment "I also think you should be able to get redress if you can prove that a US company discriminated against you because of their complicity in the boycott.", two points--

1) You don't know that I have or haven't. The limits on employment discrimination class actions are recent - very recent - and I'm an old fart.

2) You may want to check out the Environment and Energy forum - there are some threads that are pretty knowledgeable about my professional activities and how I "support myself" - no hints - no more answers.


I am not hurting - it would have cost them less if I had been an employee instead of a consultant :think: and licensor :think: .

:toast: :bounce:

We have reached

1: for i = 1,1, infinity, 10
do i=i+1;
10: goto 1;