The United Church of Canada’s decision is intended to signal to the Israeli government that it considers Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal, and to contribute to a long-term Middle East peace.
Some also hoped it would send a signal to the Harper government, a staunch ally of Israel that has come out strong against such boycotts in the past while refusing to condemn the settlements.
“It wasn’t part of our design, but one of the possibilities is that this gives at least an alternative message to the government to say ‘Maybe you need to think carefully about where Canadian society is on this,’” said Bruce Gregersen, a United Church general council officer.
Exact details of how the United Church of Canada’s boycott will be applied will be determined in the coming weeks and months, officials said.
It will likely only apply to a small number of products initially. The boycott will not apply to goods produced within Israel proper.
The Israeli settlements are self-contained, fortified towns or conclaves built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
They are considered illegal by the UN and most countries because those territories were captured by Israel in a war in 1967 and are hence seen as being subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbids construction on occupied land.
Not only has the presence and continued expansion of these settlements been a major source of international criticism against Israel, but they are also considered one of the main obstacles to Middle East peace.
A number of industries have sprung up in the settlements, with products like cosmetics, wine and plastics exported around the world.
The United Church of Canada is only the latest in a growing list of organizations around the world to have adopted a boycott of such products.
Individual church members are not required to participate in the boycott, but they will be encouraged to do so — and spread the word at the same time.
Those who championed it say on that latter front, success has already been achieved.
“I can’t say whether it’s made a difference in Israel and Palestine,” said former United Church moderator David Giuliano.
“But it’s made a difference already in that it’s generated a lot more discussion in Canadian culture, and I think there’s a greater awareness among Canadians about the situation.”
Indeed, the resolution has been quite controversial.
It prompted strong opposition from United Church members right up until it was approved on Friday afternoon, and Gregersen acknowledged some members may be deeply upset by it.
It has also been criticized by pro-Israel and Jewish organizations that called it unbalanced and alleged that it borders on anti-semitism.
“It singles out Israel in a way that is so fundamentally unhelpful,” Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs CEO Shimon Fogel said earlier this week.
“In undertaking this action, the United Church has absolutely disqualified itself from playing a constructive role in advancing peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.”
But there were also many groups that supported it, including Jewish Canadians who have been concerned about Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which the UN and most countries recognize as being illegal.
“It’s a positive step toward a resolution in the Middle East,” said Sid Shniad, co-chair of Independent Jewish Voices.
There was no immediate response from the Harper government to the boycott’s approval.
It has previously stripped federal funding from civil society groups that have or were suspected of advocating for a boycott on goods produced in the settlements and divestment from Israeli companies based there.
They argue such advocates are seeking to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.
Champions of the boycott disputed that allegation, noting that the resolution also “denounces all questions about Israel’s right exist or that seek to undermine its legitimacy as a state.”
The resolution also denounces aggression and incitement to violence toward the state of Israel and its people — though it doesn’t prescribe any actions against those who do so.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Lee Berthiaume
No comments:
Post a Comment