Recent Changes for "Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_SanctionsRecent Changes of the page "Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions" on Davis Wiki.en-us Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2014-01-04 12:56:17StevenDaubertincludes <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ [[Include(PastEvent)]]<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2013-11-21 17:30:07StevenDaubertremoved link to parked URL - fixed a typo or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7/8 a lot <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ||<span>[http://</span>davisbds<span>.org/]</span>|| </td> <td> <span>+</span> ||davisbds|| </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> A group of members of the ["Davis Food Co-op" Co-op<span>] [[http://davisbds.org/]</span>] are proposing a [http://www.davisfood.coop/bylaws.html#initiativereferendum member initiative] to have the store boycott Israeli products, and take other actions. The Co-op General Manager has authority under Board Policy GP-10 to direct that products be removed, but has declined to take this action. Members have the right to petition under our ''Bylaws''; they will need to gather the signatures of five percent of Co-op shareholders -- over 500 signatures, since there are over 10,000 members as of 1/1/10. </td> <td> <span>+</span> A group of members of the ["Davis Food Co-op" Co-op] are proposing a [http://www.davisfood.coop/bylaws.html#initiativereferendum member initiative] to have the store boycott Israeli products, and take other actions. The Co-op General Manager has authority under Board Policy GP-10 to direct that products be removed, but has declined to take this action. Members have the right to petition under our ''Bylaws''; they will need to gather the signatures of five percent of Co-op shareholders -- over 500 signatures, since there are over 10,000 members as of 1/1/10. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 15: </td> <td> Line 15: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''''RESOLUTION BY THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE DAVIS FOOD COOP FOR THE BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI PRODUCTS AND PARTCIPATION IN THE GLOBAL BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, AND SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN''' </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''''RESOLUTION BY THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE DAVIS FOOD COOP FOR THE BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI PRODUCTS AND PART<span>I</span>CIPATION IN THE GLOBAL BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, AND SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN''' </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 71: </td> <td> Line 71: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''Whereas'' the DFC is not qualified to pass judgment on the legitimacy or illegit<span>e</span>macy of actions or policies of any foreign government, particularly with respect to extraordinary actions by such governments that are invoked in the name of national security, and </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''Whereas'' the DFC is not qualified to pass judgment on the legitimacy or illegit<span>i</span>macy of actions or policies of any foreign government, particularly with respect to extraordinary actions by such governments that are invoked in the name of national security, and </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 125: </td> <td> Line 125: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Davis Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice in the Middle East has been soliciting signatures on the following statment:<br> <span>-</span> ''We the undersigned protest against any effort or resolution by the Davis Food Co-op, or any other retail establishment in the City of Davis, that would in any way be complicit with the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” movement directed against the soverign Jewish nation of Israel. Any effort to restrict or eliminate Israeli products that are sold at the Davis Food Co-op, or any other retail establishment, must be rejected outright.'' </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Davis Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice in the Middle East has been soliciting signatures on the following stat<span>e</span>ment:<br> <span>+</span> ''We the undersigned protest against any effort or resolution by the Davis Food Co-op, or any other retail establishment in the City of Davis, that would in any way be complicit with the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” movement directed against the sover<span>e</span>ign Jewish nation of Israel. Any effort to restrict or eliminate Israeli products that are sold at the Davis Food Co-op, or any other retail establishment, must be rejected outright.'' </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 132: </td> <td> Line 132: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> http://www.jpost.com/Cooperations/Google/Default.aspx?q=poll%20/%20arab%20views%20of%20Jews; a recent Pew research poll that flies in the face of the boycott reolution's assertions that that Israel treats it's Arab citizens poorly </td> <td> <span>+</span> http://www.jpost.com/Cooperations/Google/Default.aspx?q=poll%20/%20arab%20views%20of%20Jews; a recent Pew research poll that flies in the face of the boycott re<span>s</span>olution's assertions that that Israel treats it's Arab citizens poorly </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 150: </td> <td> Line 150: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ It would have put the co-op in violation of some commerce clause. It's illegal to participate in boycotting another nation if you are a US store so sayeth the Fed ~SD</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 177: </td> <td> Line 178: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2010-03-01 13:15:58'' [[nbsp]] I am completely against this boycott because I feel it is one-sided, racist, and just supports the kind of double standard that Israel is held up to. I do not see boycotts going up against Japan for their whale "researching" or against Russian or Chinese goods for their true occupation of Chechnya<span>n</span> and Tibetan territo<span>t</span>ies, respectively. So why try to punish Israel when it has been trying to make headway at peace for the past 20 years? Isn't that a bit counter-intuitive? As I do not want to ramble, I will just say I completely agree with Ralph Libet and CovertProfessor. I will really lose respect for the Davis community if this boycott, or any boycott against Israel in any other store goes through. Do some research, do some reading, and take a look at the current facts and the recent historical FACTS, and not the propaganda issued forth because frankly it would be sad to see this boycott passed on the basis of Israel needing to release "occupied" lands and needing to stop violating human rights that would not have occured had certain actions been taken by other Arab countries. --["Users/DP2010"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2010-03-02 22:29:06'' [[nbsp]] I've stayed out of this whole thing because, frankly, it's not worth my trouble, but I felt it very amusing that the link just posted, at davisbds<span>.org</span>, says that one of the possible causes for the dropping of the initiative is that people threatened to boycott the Co-op, which would be "bullying tactics", to use their own words. On a page that is in support of a boycott... --["Users/JoePomidor"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2010-03-01 13:15:58'' [[nbsp]] I am completely against this boycott because I feel it is one-sided, racist, and just supports the kind of double standard that Israel is held up to. I do not see boycotts going up against Japan for their whale "researching" or against Russian or Chinese goods for their true occupation of Chechnya and Tibetan territo<span>r</span>ies, respectively. So why try to punish Israel when it has been trying to make headway at peace for the past 20 years? Isn't that a bit counter-intuitive? As I do not want to ramble, I will just say I completely agree with Ralph Libet and CovertProfessor. I will really lose respect for the Davis community if this boycott, or any boycott against Israel in any other store goes through. Do some research, do some reading, and take a look at the current facts and the recent historical FACTS, and not the propaganda issued forth because frankly it would be sad to see this boycott passed on the basis of Israel needing to release "occupied" lands and needing to stop violating human rights that would not have occu<span>r</span>red had certain actions been taken by other Arab countries. --["Users/DP2010"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2010-03-02 22:29:06'' [[nbsp]] I've stayed out of this whole thing because, frankly, it's not worth my trouble, but I felt it very amusing that the link just posted, at davisbds, says that one of the possible causes for the dropping of the initiative is that people threatened to boycott the Co-op, which would be "bullying tactics", to use their own words. On a page that is in support of a boycott... --["Users/JoePomidor"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 214: </td> <td> Line 215: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * We're definitely miscommunicating. I didn't think that you were accusing ''me'' of having ulterior motives, but you were pretty clearly suggesting that some of those directly involved in the proposed boycott "might" have ulterior motives. So, I asked your what your basis was for that accusation. In any case, I think we can be clear now that I was not insulting you and you were not insulting me. As for our disagreement, I think we've both stated our positions. You think that extremely complex politics are appropriate waters for co-ops to wade into, and I do not. I don't think there is anything further to be said. --cp </td> <td> <span>+</span> * We're definitely miscommunicating<span>&nbsp;</span>. I didn't think that you were accusing ''me'' of having ulterior motives, but you were pretty clearly suggesting that some of those directly involved in the proposed boycott "might" have ulterior motives. So, I asked your what your basis was for that accusation. In any case, I think we can be clear now that I was not insulting you and you were not insulting me. As for our disagreement, I think we've both stated our positions. You think that extremely complex politics are appropriate waters for co-ops to wade into, and I do not. I don't think there is anything further to be said. --cp </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-04-13 14:17:26ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 231: </td> <td> Line 231: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Logically this is misleading, though pragmatically--or from a broad, utilitarian vantage--you are likely correct. I.e., it would be logically incorrect to tell a union lobbying against labor exploitation within their particular company that they are not serious about labor rights simply because they are focusing all of their efforts on the company and not other, more serious offenders. Thus, one group's potentially legitimate claims against a certain type of transgression cannot be discredited on the grounds that every other type of transgression of the same kind must be addressed. This type of logic (or red herring) would have us ignore campaigns against the harmful effects of smoking because these campaigns do not address all the other types of harmful substances, like heroin, or that because car accidents are responsible for more deaths than smoking cigarettes, we should focus on car accidents and not cigarette smoking. On the other hand, a general assessment of "worst offenders" when it comes to civil rights abuses may rank China above Israel, but we would also have to look at how other countries are exploitative in the same kind of way, and so we could get caught up in a type of regress and lose focus. So each group with its own identified civil rights issue should have its say, I think. -Z</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-30 12:34:32KemblePopeComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 229: </td> <td> Line 229: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-03-30 13:34:32'' [[nbsp]] I don't think that this group is really serious about human rights. If they were, they should be proposing boycotts of the worst offenders. Our time would be much better spent considering a boycott of all Chinese products: http://bit.ly/aMXCl3 --["Users/KemblePope"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-23 15:43:00ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 228: </td> <td> Line 228: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Interesting. I am ignorant of all the legal positions on this, so I find it all rather baffling, and counterintuitive. I would think a legally sovereign entity could pass its own laws, but it makes sense that any law, passed under the auspices of a sovereign institution, is nevertheless theoretically vulnerable to some type of counter-litigation (casinos on Indian reservations come to mind). A cursory search online suggests that it is in fact illegal in the United States to ban Israeli products, at present. I'm a literary humanist, not a lawyer (said in a ''Star Trek'' doctor tone), so I don't have time to do more thorough research on the matter, but the link defiantly helped. Thanks. -Z </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Interesting. I am ignorant of all the legal positions on this, so I find it all rather baffling, and counterintuitive. I would think a legally sovereign entity could pass its own laws, but it makes sense that any law, passed under the auspices of a sovereign institution, is nevertheless theoretically vulnerable to some type of counter-litigation (casinos on Indian reservations come to mind). A cursory search online suggests that it is in fact illegal in the United States to ban Israeli products, at present. I'm a literary humanist, not a lawyer (said in a ''Star Trek'' doctor tone), so I don't have time to do more thorough research on the matter, but the link defiantly helped. Thanks. <span>NOTE: here's a possible compromise: the board could allow the measure to go on the ballot, under one set of laws (the bylaws), and then not comply with the initiative, if passed, under another set of laws (the anti-boycott laws linked above, assuming they apply to this situation). Why can't this work? It would allow the membership to keep their voice, whether the initiative passes or not, ''and'' it would buffer the co-op from violating the boycott laws. </span>-Z </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-23 15:14:47ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 228: </td> <td> Line 228: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Interesting. I am ignorant of all the legal positions on this, so I find it all rather baffling, and counterintuitive. I would think a legally sovereign entity could pass its own laws, but it makes sense that any law, passed under the auspices of a sovereign institution, is nevertheless theoretically vulnerable to some type of counter-litigation (casinos on Indian reservations come to mind). A cursory search online suggests that it is in fact illegal in the United States to ban Israeli products, at present. I'm a literary humanist, not a lawyer, so I don't have time to do more thorough research on the matter. <span>I'm too busy for extracurricular efforts on that scale, but I'd li</span>k<span>e to learn, at some point, what arguments are used to justify the anti-boycott precedent</span>. <span>If someone with expertise on the matter could lay out a summary of sorts, that would be edifying.</span> -Z </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Interesting. I am ignorant of all the legal positions on this, so I find it all rather baffling, and counterintuitive. I would think a legally sovereign entity could pass its own laws, but it makes sense that any law, passed under the auspices of a sovereign institution, is nevertheless theoretically vulnerable to some type of counter-litigation (casinos on Indian reservations come to mind). A cursory search online suggests that it is in fact illegal in the United States to ban Israeli products, at present. I'm a literary humanist, not a lawyer<span>&nbsp;(said in a ''Star Trek'' doctor tone)</span>, so I don't have time to do more thorough research on the matter<span>, but the link defiantly helped</span>. <span>Than</span>k<span>s</span>. -Z </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-23 15:11:44ZacharyNorwoodre wl <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 228: </td> <td> Line 228: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Interesting. I am ignorant of all the legal positions on this, so I find it all rather baffling, and counterintuitive. I would think a legally sovereign entity could pass its own laws, but it makes sense that any law, passed under the auspices of a sovereign institution, is nevertheless theoretically vulnerable to some type of counter-litigation (casinos on Indian reservations come to mind). A cursory search online suggests that it is in fact illegal in the United States to ban Israeli products, at present. I'm a literary humanist, not a lawyer, so I don't have time to do more thorough research on the matter. I'm too busy for extracurricular efforts on that scale, but I'd like to learn, at some point, what arguments are used to justify the anti-boycott precedent. If someone with expertise on the matter could lay out a summary of sorts, that would be edifying. -Z</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-23 14:38:07WilliamLewis(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 227: </td> <td> Line 227: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I could have sworn that the board stated that they kept the item off the ballot because [http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm boycotting Israel is illegal]. Edit: Yup. They said that in their February 7 resolution. They stated that the boycott would be illegal. The referenced the bylaw that says measures must have a lawful purpose. Since the boycott is unlawful, they were actually prohibited from letting it be on the ballot and they ''are not'' breaking their bylaws. --["wl"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I could have sworn that the board stated that they kept the item off the ballot because [http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm boycotting Israel is illegal]. Edit: Yup. They said that in their February 7 resolution. They stated that the boycott would be illegal. The referenced the bylaw that says measures must have a lawful purpose. Since the boycott is unlawful, they were actually prohibited from letting it be on the ballot and they ''are not'' breaking their bylaws<span>. If you don't like it, you should call up your federal representatives and ask them to repeal the anti-boycott laws (which I agree are stupid)</span>. --["wl"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-23 14:36:50WilliamLewis(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 227: </td> <td> Line 227: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I could have sworn that the board stated that they kept the item off the ballot because [http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm boycotting Israel is illegal]. --["wl"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I could have sworn that the board stated that they kept the item off the ballot because [http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm boycotting Israel is illegal]<span>. Edit: Yup. They said that in their February 7 resolution. They stated that the boycott would be illegal. The referenced the bylaw that says measures must have a lawful purpose. Since the boycott is unlawful, they were actually prohibited from letting it be on the ballot and they ''are not'' breaking their bylaws</span>. --["wl"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-23 14:28:32WilliamLewis(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 227: </td> <td> Line 227: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I could have sworn that the board kept the item off the ballot because [http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm boycotting Israel is illegal]. --["wl"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I could have sworn that the board<span>&nbsp;stated that they</span> kept the item off the ballot because [http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm boycotting Israel is illegal]. --["wl"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-23 14:28:18WilliamLewis(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 227: </td> <td> Line 227: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I could have sworn that the board kept the item off the ballot because [http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm boycotting Israel is illegal]. --["wl"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-23 13:56:59ZacharyNorwoodre DNE <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 226: </td> <td> Line 226: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I'd like to see what the board thinks it is protecting itself against, legally, by breaking its own legally ratified bylaws. There's a contradiction here. And as someone said on the leadership email list recently, "if it is true that the co-op is being threatened in order to keep this measure off the ballot, I find that highly problematic and would call on Board members to seriously discount those views as they aren't secure enough to stand on their own merits." --ZN</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-17 00:10:55IDoNotExistComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 217: </td> <td> Line 217: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-03-17 01:10:55'' [[nbsp]] I don't know the rules governing the board, so I'm taking a bit of a guess here. But in general, such a board would have the responsibility to act in the best interests of the Co-Op. They had several choices.<br> + <br> + -They could allow the motion to get onto the ballot, which might upset a large percentage of their members and involve them in a political issue not related to the Food Co-Op. If it passed, they might be boycotted by people who disagreed with the motion. If it did not, they might be boycotted by a much smaller group of people. They, or the Co-Op, might have been sued by their members regardless of whether the motion passed or not. Either way, that would not be in the best interests of the Co-Op.<br> + <br> + -They could deny the motion. This only works if there is some justification for doing so under whatever rules they are bound by. If successful, this has the advantage of keeping the Co-Op out of a political fight, which is arguably in the best interests of the Co-Op.<br> + <br> + They chose the second option, and appear to have done so in a way that justifies that they have followed the Co-Op's rules, thus protecting both the Co-Op and themselves legally (or so I would imagine). Whether or not you agree with that decision, it is most likely the only one that they could actually make that would provide legal protection for the Co-Op.<br> + --["Users/IDoNotExist"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:55:14ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 215: </td> <td> Line 215: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Yes, I agree. This seems consistent with miscommunication, because I was only meaning to address Musawwir's concern<span>ed</span> that the group itself is part of the problem, and was puzzled by your response, which seemed tangential. I.e., I do not understand how my echoing Musawwir's concern <span>(which I assume you did not consider, even though the context situates my comments below his post) is an</span> "accusation." "Accusation" seems a rather loaded choice of diction for an innocuous acknowledgment of some possible problem with the boycott group. I do not know if there are problems with the group. That's just my point: I do not have any evidence, because I am not ensconced in this issue at the level of political philosophy, nor am I privy to the boycott group's history. I am taking a neutral stance regarding the claims of the boycott, and focusing instead, more productively, on the policy ramifications of what the board is doing in response. I do not presume, as you seem to suggest I do, that by allowing this membership initiative to go on the ballot that automatically means the co-op is taking on complex political issues. A democratic system that says 'x # of signatures allows a membership initiative to go on the ballot' remains neutral about the contents, and if a group fulfills the bylaw requirements to put up a membership initiative, the DFC does not therefore advocate the contents of the group's initiative in any way. I.e., by analogy, let us assume the initiative is about boycotting all chocolate sources that have any ties with military juntas or documented labor exploitation in the Ivory Coast. This also is a complicated political issue, with many perspectival elements. It's not as complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, granted, but it's still a good analogy for my purposes. Now, if this hypothetical boycott of the Ivory Coast initiative made it onto the ballot, would it follow, by default, that the DFC is somehow complicit in advocating the stance of the initiative itself? No. That's not the function of the DFC board or administration. It may very well be the case that adding stipulations to the bylaws are needed to mitigate possible abuse of the DFC is apolitical sounding board. But this can be done without undermining the democratic control principle. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Yes, I agree. This seems consistent with miscommunication, because I was only meaning to address Musawwir's concern that the group itself is part of the problem, and was puzzled by your response, which seemed tangential. I.e., I do not understand how my echoing Musawwir's concern <span>could be an instance of</span> "accusation." "Accusation" seems a rather loaded choice of diction for an innocuous acknowledgment of some possible problem with the boycott group. I do not know if there are problems with the group. That's just my point: I do not have any evidence, because I am not ensconced in this issue at the level of political philosophy, nor am I privy to the boycott group's history. I am taking a neutral stance regarding the claims of the boycott, and focusing instead, more productively, on the policy ramifications of what the board is doing in response. I do not presume, as you seem to suggest I do, that by allowing this membership initiative to go on the ballot that automatically means the co-op is taking on complex political issues. A democratic system that says 'x # of signatures allows a membership initiative to go on the ballot' remains neutral about the contents, and if a group fulfills the bylaw requirements to put up a membership initiative, the DFC does not therefore advocate the contents of the group's initiative in any way. I.e., by analogy, let us assume the initiative is about boycotting all chocolate sources that have any ties with military juntas or documented labor exploitation in the Ivory Coast. This also is a complicated political issue, with many perspectival elements. It's not as complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, granted, but it's still a good analogy for my purposes. Now, if this hypothetical boycott of the Ivory Coast initiative made it onto the ballot, would it follow, by default, that the DFC is somehow complicit in advocating the stance of the initiative itself? No. That's not the function of the DFC board or administration. It may very well be the case that adding stipulations to the bylaws are needed to mitigate possible abuse of the DFC is apolitical sounding board. But this can be done without undermining the democratic control principle. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:51:11ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 215: </td> <td> Line 215: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Yes, I agree. This seems consistent with miscommunication, because I was only meaning to address Musawwir's concerned that the group itself is part of the problem, and was puzzled by your response, which seemed tangential. I.e., I do not understand how my echoing Musawwir's concern (which I assume you did not consider, even though the context situates my comments below his post) is an "accusation." "Accusation" seems a rather loaded choice of diction for an innocuous acknowledgment of some possible problem with the boycott group. I do not know if there are problems with the group. That's just my point: I do not have any evidence, because I am not ensconced in this issue at the level of political philosophy, nor am I privy to the boycott group's history. I am taking a neutral stance regarding the claims of the boycott, and focusing instead, more productively, on the policy ramifications of what the board is doing in response. I do not presume, as you seem to suggest I do, that by allowing this membership initiative to go on the ballot that automatically means the co-op is taking on complex political issues. A democratic system that says 'x # of signatures allows a membership initiative to go on the ballot' remains neutral about the contents, and if a group fulfills the bylaw requirements to put up a membership initiative, the DFC does not therefore advocate the contents of the group's initiative in any way. I.e., by analogy, let us assume the initiative is about boycotting all chocolate sources that have any ties with military juntas or documented labor exploitation in the Ivory Coast. This also is a complicated political issue, with many perspectival elements. It's not as complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, granted, but it's still a good analogy for my purposes. Now, if this hypothetical boycott of the Ivory Coast initiative made it onto the ballot, would it follow, by default, that the DFC is somehow complicit in advocating the stance of the initiative itself? No. That's not the function of the DFC board or administration. It may very well be the case that adding stipulations to the bylaws are needed to mitigate possible abuse of the DFC is apolitical sounding board. But this can be done without undermining the democratic control principle.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:49:16TomGarberson(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 215: </td> <td> Line 215: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> -<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;* I ha</span>ve<span>&nbsp;no real standpoint on the issue, but it sounds to me like Zachary is just saying (and I'm inclined to agree) that it's procedurally inappropriate for the board to set aside a properly initiated motion</span>. Even if the members are unlikely to understand enough about the issue to make an informed decision on the vote, I'm inclined to agree that it's not the board's place to make that judgment. That's not their role. At the risk of being obnoxious as hell given the topic, I've gotta say: it just doesn't seem kosher. --["Users/TomGarberson"] </td> <td> <span>+ * I have no real standpoint on the issue, but it sounds to me like Zachary is just saying (and I'm inclined to agree) that it's procedurally inappropriate for the board to set aside a properly initiated motion</span>-<span>-no matter ill concei</span>ve<span>d</span>. Even if the members are unlikely to understand enough about the issue to make an informed decision on the vote, I'm inclined to agree that it's not the board's place to make that judgment. That's not their role. At the risk of being obnoxious as hell given the topic, I've gotta say: it just doesn't seem kosher. --["Users/TomGarberson"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:48:21TomGarbersonHopefully clarifying, given the surprising back-and-forth. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 215: </td> <td> Line 215: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I have no real standpoint on the issue, but it sounds to me like Zachary is just saying (and I'm inclined to agree) that it's procedurally inappropriate for the board to set aside a properly initiated motion. Even if the members are unlikely to understand enough about the issue to make an informed decision on the vote, I'm inclined to agree that it's not the board's place to make that judgment. That's not their role. At the risk of being obnoxious as hell given the topic, I've gotta say: it just doesn't seem kosher. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:33:24CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 214: </td> <td> Line 214: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * We're definitely miscommunicating. I didn't think that you were accusing ''me'' of having ulterior motives, but you were pretty clearly suggesting that some of those directly involved in the proposed boycott "might" have ulterior motives. So, I asked your what your basis was for that accusation. In any case, I think we can be clear now that I was not insulting you and you were not insulting me. As for our disagreement, I think we've both stated our positions. You think that extremely complex politics are appropriate waters for co-ops to wade into, and I do not. I don't think there is anything further to be said. --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:27:14ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 213: </td> <td> Line 213: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * *sigh* There must be a lot of background anxiety around the subject that I am not privy to, because I was not trying to be personal with my comments, but was responding to what seemed accusatory defensiveness on your part. If I mistakenly read that, I apologize. You did not ask what I meant by possible ulterior motives on behalf of the boycott group—I was merely echoing Musawwir's concern. I certainly was not suggesting you have ulterior motives! I explained what I meant about needing to be informed before voting, so that should no longer be an issue, and I clarified where my critical focus lies, so if I am already misunderstood so quick in the <span>gam</span>e, I must presume because I am out of context, I cannot understand where you’re coming from. But I<span>'m</span> won't close off. If you have some legitimate, argument based criticism of my letter, I would be glad to discuss it with you, but I would rather not have to defend myself against personally charged language, that’s all. --Z </td> <td> <span>+</span> * *sigh* There must be a lot of background anxiety around the subject that I am not privy to, because I was not trying to be personal with my comments, but was responding to what seemed accusatory defensiveness on your part. If I mistakenly read that, I apologize. You did not ask what I meant by possible ulterior motives on behalf of the boycott group—I was merely echoing Musawwir's concern. I certainly was not suggesting you have ulterior motives! I explained what I meant about needing to be informed before voting, so that should no longer be an issue, and I clarified where my critical focus lies, so if I am already misunderstood so quick in the <span>exchang</span>e, I must presume<span>,</span> because I am out of context, I cannot understand where you’re coming from. But I won't close off. If you have some legitimate, argument based criticism of my letter, I would be glad to discuss it with you, but I would rather not have to defend myself against personally charged language, that’s all. --Z </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:26:24ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 213: </td> <td> Line 213: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * *sigh* There must be a lot of background anxiety around the subject that I am not privy to, because I was not trying to be personal with my comments, but was responding to what seemed accusatory defensiveness on your part. If I mistakenly read that, I apologize. You did not ask what I meant by possible ulterior motives on behalf of the boycott group—I was merely echoing Musawwir's concern. I certainly was not suggesting you have ulterior motives! I explain what I meant about needing to be informed before voting, so that should no longer be an issue, and I clarified where my critical focus lies, so if I am already misunderstood so quick in the game, I must presume because I am out of context, I cannot understand where you’re coming from. But I'm won't close off. If you have some legitimate, argument based criticism of my letter, I would be glad to discuss it with you, but I would rather not have to defend myself against personally charged language, that’s all. --Z </td> <td> <span>+</span> * *sigh* There must be a lot of background anxiety around the subject that I am not privy to, because I was not trying to be personal with my comments, but was responding to what seemed accusatory defensiveness on your part. If I mistakenly read that, I apologize. You did not ask what I meant by possible ulterior motives on behalf of the boycott group—I was merely echoing Musawwir's concern. I certainly was not suggesting you have ulterior motives! I explain<span>ed</span> what I meant about needing to be informed before voting, so that should no longer be an issue, and I clarified where my critical focus lies, so if I am already misunderstood so quick in the game, I must presume because I am out of context, I cannot understand where you’re coming from. But I'm won't close off. If you have some legitimate, argument based criticism of my letter, I would be glad to discuss it with you, but I would rather not have to defend myself against personally charged language, that’s all. --Z </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:25:21ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 213: </td> <td> Line 213: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * *sigh* There must be a lot of background anxiety around the subject that I am not privy to, because I was not trying to be personal with my comments, but was responding to what seemed accusatory defensiveness on your part. If I mistakenly read that, I apologize. You did not ask what I meant by possible ulterior motives on behalf of the boycott group—I was merely echoing Musawwir's concern. I certainly was not suggesting you have ulterior motives! I explain what I meant about needing to be informed before voting, so that should no longer be an issue, and I clarified where my critical focus lies, so if I am already misunderstood so quick in the game, I must presume because I am out of context, I cannot understand where you’re coming from. But I'm won't close off. If you have some legitimate, argument based criticism of my letter, I would be glad to discuss it with you, but I would rather not have to defend myself against personally charged language, that’s all. --Z</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:21:10CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 212: </td> <td> Line 212: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Ok, I think we're done. I've made no personal remarks about you and said ''nothing'' about your intentions. ''You'' brought up "ulterior motives," not me -- and yes, when you say something like that, you've made an accusation. <span>Y</span>ou said that people need to be informed about the political groups involved in order to vote, not me (I added that it would take quite a bit to be ''truly'' informed about the political situation). --cp </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Ok, I think we're done. I've made no personal remarks about you and said ''nothing'' about your intentions. ''You'' brought up "ulterior motives," not me -- and yes, when you say something like that, you've made an accusation. <span>And y</span>ou said that people need to be informed about the political groups involved in order to vote, not me (I added that it would take quite a bit to be ''truly'' informed about the political situation). --cp </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:20:41CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 212: </td> <td> Line 212: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Ok, I think we're done. I've made no personal remarks about you and said ''nothing'' about your intentions. ''You'' brought up "ulterior motives," not me -- and yes, when you say something like that, you've made an accusation. You said that people need to be informed about the political groups involved in order to vote, not me (I added that it would take quite a bit to be ''truly'' informed about the political situation). --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:13:42ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 211: </td> <td> Line 211: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * First, please try to avoid making this a personal issue. Using charged language like 'accusing,' and assuming I have some 'crazy' suggestion from the start, gets things off track. I don’t want to have to defend myself against every possible projection you may have about my supposed intentions. That said, I meant to say "if" there are any ulterior motives, people should know about them (with regard to the organization promoting the boycott, which I know little about). I actually sent <span>hi</span>m a letter, early on, trying to get them to share what their motives were, and to take into consideration possible long-term effects on membership initiatives, if they behaved badly, and I got no response. So I really do not know. Again, my motives are directed at the board's action vis-à-vis the bylaws, and how this is all consistent with some of my previous bad experiences with co-op administration and policy. Please don't try to derail my intentions into some personal battle, because I want no part of that. -Z </td> <td> <span>+</span> * First, please try to avoid making this a personal issue. Using charged language like 'accusing,' and assuming I have some 'crazy' suggestion from the start, gets things off track. I don’t want to have to defend myself against every possible projection you may have about my supposed intentions. That said, I meant to say "if" there are any ulterior motives, people should know about them (with regard to the organization promoting the boycott, which I know little about). I actually sent <span>the</span>m a letter, early on, trying to get them to share what their motives were, and to take into consideration possible long-term effects on membership initiatives, if they behaved badly, and I got no response. So I really do not know. Again, my motives are directed at the board's action vis-à-vis the bylaws, and how this is all consistent with some of my previous bad experiences with co-op administration and policy. Please don't try to derail my intentions into some personal battle, because I want no part of that. -Z </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:12:54ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 211: </td> <td> Line 211: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * First, please try to avoid making this a personal issue. Using charged language like 'accusing,' and assuming I have some 'crazy' suggestion from the start, gets things off track. I don’t want to have to defend myself against every possible projection you <span>have my intent</span>. That said, I meant to say "if" there are any ulterior motives, people should know about them (with regard to the organization promoting the boycott, which I know little about). I actually sent him a letter, early on, trying to get them to share what their motives were, and to take into consideration possible long-term effects on membership initiatives, if they behaved badly, and I got no response. So I really do not know. Again, my motives are directed at the board's action vis-à-vis the bylaws, and how this is all consistent with some of my previous bad experiences with co-op administration and policy. Please don't try to derail my intentions into some personal battle<span>&nbsp;you're waging in your mind</span>, because I <span>am not a</span> part of that. -Z </td> <td> <span>+</span> * First, please try to avoid making this a personal issue. Using charged language like 'accusing,' and assuming I have some 'crazy' suggestion from the start, gets things off track. I don’t want to have to defend myself against every possible projection you <span>may have about my supposed intentions</span>. That said, I meant to say "if" there are any ulterior motives, people should know about them (with regard to the organization promoting the boycott, which I know little about). I actually sent him a letter, early on, trying to get them to share what their motives were, and to take into consideration possible long-term effects on membership initiatives, if they behaved badly, and I got no response. So I really do not know. Again, my motives are directed at the board's action vis-à-vis the bylaws, and how this is all consistent with some of my previous bad experiences with co-op administration and policy. Please don't try to derail my intentions into some personal battle, because I <span>want no</span> part of that. -Z </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:11:43ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 209: </td> <td> Line 209: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Hrm. I'm not sure paternalism is the right response here. People can do their own research on this issue. But my problem is not with the politics of the issue itself, but with overriding the bylaws to circumvent what is perceived as a problematic initiative. But if the initiative has garnered the votes, it should go on. And people should be informed about any ulterior motives; that's the nature of the democratic, political beast, I’m afraid. And as soon as you start chipping away at this, you start chipping away at democracy proper. I agree it is not a simple issue. But circumventing the bylaws undemocratically is a straightforward issue, on its own. -Z </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Hrm. I'm not sure paternalism is the right response here. People can do their own research on this issue. But my problem is not with the politics of the issue itself, but with overriding the bylaws to circumvent what is perceived as a problematic initiative. But if the initiative has garnered the votes, it should go on. And people should be informed about any ulterior motives<span>&nbsp;(if there are any)</span>; that's the nature of the democratic, political beast, I’m afraid. And as soon as you start chipping away at this, you start chipping away at democracy proper. I agree it is not a simple issue. But circumventing the bylaws undemocratically is a straightforward issue, on its own. -Z </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 211: </td> <td> Line 211: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * First, please try to avoid making this a personal issue. Using charged language like 'accusing,' and assuming I have some 'crazy' suggestion from the start, gets things off track. I don’t want to have to defend myself against every possible projection you have my intent. That said, I meant to say "if" there are any ulterior motives, people should know about them (with regard to the organization promoting the boycott, which I know little about). I actually sent him a letter, early on, trying to get them to share what their motives were, and to take into consideration possible long-term effects on membership initiatives, if they behaved badly, and I got no response. So I really do not know. Again, my motives are directed at the board's action vis-à-vis the bylaws, and how this is all consistent with some of my previous bad experiences with co-op administration and policy. Please don't try to derail my intentions into some personal battle you're waging in your mind, because I am not a part of that. -Z</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 20:04:59CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 210: </td> <td> Line 210: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I'm not arguing for paternalism. I'm arguing for keeping politics -- especially complicated politics -- out of a food co-op where it doesn't belong, which is one of the points that the board made in its statement. And who are you accusing of having "ulterior motives" (and on what evidence)? --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 19:57:45ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 209: </td> <td> Line 209: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Hrm. I'm not sure paternalism is the right response here. People can do their own research on this issue. But my problem is not with the politics of the issue itself, but with overriding the bylaws to circumvent what is perceived as a problematic initiative. But if the initiative has garnered the votes, it should go on. And people should be informed about any ulterior motives; that's the nature of the political beast, I’m afraid. And as soon as you start chipping away at this, you start chipping away at democracy proper. I agree it is not a simple issue. But circumventing the bylaws undemocratically is a straightforward issue, on its own. -Z </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Hrm. I'm not sure paternalism is the right response here. People can do their own research on this issue. But my problem is not with the politics of the issue itself, but with overriding the bylaws to circumvent what is perceived as a problematic initiative. But if the initiative has garnered the votes, it should go on. And people should be informed about any ulterior motives; that's the nature of the <span>democratic, </span>political beast, I’m afraid. And as soon as you start chipping away at this, you start chipping away at democracy proper. I agree it is not a simple issue. But circumventing the bylaws undemocratically is a straightforward issue, on its own. -Z </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 19:56:55ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 209: </td> <td> Line 209: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Hrm. I'm not sure paternalism is the right response here. People can do their own research on this issue. But my problem is not with the politics of the issue itself, but with overriding the bylaws to circumvent what is perceived as a problematic initiative. But if the initiative has garnered the votes, it should go on. And people should be informed about any ulterior motives; that's the nature of the political beast, I’m afraid. And as soon as you start chipping away at this, you start chipping away at democracy proper. I agree it is not a simple issue. But circumventing the bylaws undemocratically is a straightforward issue, on its own. -Z</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 19:53:56CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ||<span>[</span>[http://davisbds.org/]<span>]</span>|| </td> <td> <span>+</span> ||[http://davisbds.org/]|| </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 19:53:41CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 208: </td> <td> Line 208: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * And my point is that without the history lesson, one would not be in the position to vote. This is ''not'' a simple issue. One shouldn't be required to learn geo-politics -- or to take a stand on them -- in order to belong to a food co-op. --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 19:51:54ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 207: </td> <td> Line 207: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I was not suggesting we all need to read everything under the sun about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (just as I wouldn't say for every general election issue we need expert knowledge on the subject before voting). That would be silly, indeed. I was merely suggesting that if something goes on the ballot, the membership ought to have as much information as possible, and perhaps a means of carrying out their own additional research, so they can inform themselves before voting, and I imagine many of them already have studied up on these things (<span>the </span>DFC members<span>hip are pretty</span> smart people, in my experience). So my comment was more about how to handle ballot initiatives, democratically and in general, not about giving everyone a very particular history lesson. -ZN </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I was not suggesting we all need to read everything under the sun about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (just as I wouldn't say for every general election issue we need expert knowledge on the subject before voting). That would be silly, indeed. I was merely suggesting that if something goes on the ballot, the membership ought to have as much information as possible, and perhaps a means of carrying out their own additional research, so they can inform themselves before voting, and I imagine many of them already have studied up on these things (DFC members<span>&nbsp;are</span> smart people, in my experience). So my comment was more about how to handle ballot initiatives, democratically and in general, not about giving everyone a very particular history lesson. -ZN </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 19:51:18ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 207: </td> <td> Line 207: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I was not <span>at all meaning to suggest we all need</span> read everything under the sun about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That would be silly, indeed. I was merely suggesting that if something goes on the ballot, the membership ought to have as much information as possible, and perhaps a means of carrying out their own additional research, so they can inform themselves before voting, and I imagine many of them already have studied up on these things (the DFC membership are pretty smart people, in my experience). So my comment was more about how to handle ballot initiatives, democratically and in general, not about giving everyone a very particular history lesson. -ZN </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I was not <span>suggesting we all need to</span> read everything under the sun about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict<span>&nbsp;(just as I wouldn't say for every general election issue we need expert knowledge on the subject before voting)</span>. That would be silly, indeed. I was merely suggesting that if something goes on the ballot, the membership ought to have as much information as possible, and perhaps a means of carrying out their own additional research, so they can inform themselves before voting, and I imagine many of them already have studied up on these things (the DFC membership are pretty smart people, in my experience). So my comment was more about how to handle ballot initiatives, democratically and in general, not about giving everyone a very particular history lesson. -ZN </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 19:49:57ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 207: </td> <td> Line 207: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I was not at all meaning to suggest we all need read everything under the sun about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict<span>;</span> I was merely suggesting<span>,</span> if something goes on the ballot, the membership ought to have as much information as possible, and means of carrying out their own additional research, <span>to</span> inform themselves before voting, and I imagine many of them already have studied up on these things. <span>M</span>y comment was more about how to handle ballot initiatives, democratically<span>, not suggesting we need to give everyone a</span> history lesson. -ZN </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I was not at all meaning to suggest we all need read everything under the sun about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict<span>. That would be silly, indeed.</span> I was merely suggesting<span>&nbsp;that</span> if something goes on the ballot, the membership ought to have as much information as possible, and <span>perhaps a </span>means of carrying out their own additional research, <span>so they can</span> inform themselves before voting, and I imagine many of them already have studied up on these things<span>&nbsp;(the DFC membership are pretty smart people, in my experience)</span>. <span>So m</span>y comment was more about how to handle ballot initiatives, democratically<span>&nbsp;and in general, not about giving everyone a very particular</span> history lesson. -ZN </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 19:47:01ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 207: </td> <td> Line 207: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I was not at all meaning to suggest we all need read everything under the sun about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; I was merely suggesting, if something goes on the ballot, the membership ought to have as much information as possible, and means of carrying out their own additional research, to inform themselves before voting, and I imagine many of them already have studied up on these things. My comment was more about how to handle ballot initiatives, democratically, not suggesting we need to give everyone a history lesson. -ZN</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 19:16:14CovertProfessorI know I'll regret getting enmeshed in this <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I believe KPFA just refers to the Berkeley radio station. :P But listen to yourself -- "we need to keep the membership at large abreast on all these issues" ?! You need to be steeped in decades (some would say thousands of years!) of Israeli-Palestinian conflict ''in order to be an active member of a food co-op''? (Anything less than that, and you don't know what you're talking about). Can't you see how crazy that is, and how far out of its purview this proposal was? --cp</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 18:39:09ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 205: </td> <td> Line 205: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Heya Musawwir. I admire your stance (as usual) on such matters, but in this case, do you think overriding the bylaws is an appropriate response? Why can't the membership vote this down? I'm not familiar with the KPFA myself, but sometimes more radical movements can proffer something worth considering, and without knowing what the KPFA stands for, I can't judge the issue on that alone (perhaps I'm revealing my ignorance by saying this, which is part of my point: we need to keep the membership at large abreast on all these issues, rather than surreptitiously preempt a measure that follows the bylaw guidelines, setting a bad pre<span>si</span>dent for future initiatives). But for me, again, it's not a political problem; it's a democratic policy problem. What the board is doing here (overriding a legitimate membership initiative) is going about things the wrong way. -Z </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Heya Musawwir. I admire your stance (as usual) on such matters, but in this case, do you think overriding the bylaws is an appropriate response? Why can't the membership vote this down? I'm not familiar with the KPFA myself, but sometimes more radical movements can proffer something worth considering, and without knowing what the KPFA stands for, I can't judge the issue on that alone (perhaps I'm revealing my ignorance by saying this, which is part of my point: we need to keep the membership at large abreast on all these issues, rather than surreptitiously preempt a measure that follows the bylaw guidelines, setting a bad pre<span>ce</span>dent for future initiatives). But for me, again, it's not a political problem; it's a democratic policy problem. What the board is doing here (overriding a legitimate membership initiative) is going about things the wrong way. -Z </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 18:37:56ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 205: </td> <td> Line 205: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Heya Musawwir. I admire your stance (as usual) on such matters, but in this case, do you think overriding the bylaws is an appropriate response? Why can't the membership vote this down? I'm not familiar with the KPFA myself, but sometimes more radical movements can proffer something worth considering, and without knowing what the KPFA stands for, I can't judge the issue on that alone (perhaps I'm revealing my ignorance by saying this, which is part of my point: we need to keep the membership at large abreast on all these issues, rather than surreptitiously preempt a measure that follows the bylaw guidelines, setting a bad president for future initiatives). But for me, again, it's not a political problem; it's a democratic policy problem. What the board is doing here (overriding a legitimate membership initiative) is going about things the wrong way. -Z</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 18:26:32MusawwirSpiegelComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 203: </td> <td> Line 203: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-03-16 19:26:32'' [[nbsp]] I am a secular Jew, a practicing Buddhist, and a moderate political liberal. I am glad that the Board rejected the proposed boycott of goods from Israel. Others have well articulated the reasons why imposing this boycott against Israel would constitute a blatant double standard and why the history of modern Palestine-Israel shows that the situation is not a black and white one with respect to blame. I do find very offensive the phrase "sovereign Jewish nation of Israel" to describe that country. To me the justification for the founding of the nation was the need for a place of refuge for the Jews who suffered in the Holocaust and persecution elsewhere (including in the Arab nations). On the other hand, to the extent that Israel is today governed as a semi-theocracy (through the political power of the fundamentalists) regarding itself as a "Jewish nation", denies equal rights to non-Jewish immigrants, or seeks to expand beyond the post 1967 borders, I am totally out of synch with Israel. I am very upset by those members of the Jewish community (such as AIPAC) and members of the Christian religious right) who seek to give Israel a blank check while providing substantial financial support to that country including taxpayers’ dollars. However, this one-sided boycott attempt seems to me to be a thoughtless tactic of the fundamentalists of the extreme political left, cheered on by KPFA and the like without regard to the subtleties of the problem. I’m happy that it has bitten the dust. --["Users/MusawwirSpiegel"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 17:23:17ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 199: </td> <td> Line 199: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In sum, this is neither a pro nor con stance regarding the boycott, but a statement about democratic policy. If DFC's co-operative principles can be trumped based on corporate law alone, then people need to wake up to the reality that the Co-op is not really a co-operative, functionally, but a comparatively better (because alternative, 'green,' and community oriented) grocery store that's been Co-opted itself by what could be perceived as a dynastic centralized power with little interest in Co-op principles, on their own (unless they suit their desire to remain unchallenged; i.e., I was waving the banner of the Rochdale Principles when I ran, but no one seemed to care about them then; but now they're brandished in this resolution). I feel uneasy saying the latter, admittedly, because I like the administration (Doug et al.) on an individual basis, but what I say here seems the sad reality behind the appearance. The present admin may run things well enough, keep up community-oriented projects I admire, promoting<span>&nbsp;superwor</span>k<span>in</span>g, etc., <span>but what will happen when this administration lea</span>ve<span>s, and others step in with the same autocratic power structure in place? Much that even the present administration takes for granted, morally, institutionally, etc</span>.<span>, may be overridden.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> In sum, this is neither a pro nor con stance regarding the boycott, but a statement about democratic policy. If DFC's co-operative principles can be trumped based on corporate law alone, then people need to wake up to the reality that the Co-op is not really a co-operative, functionally, but a comparatively better (because alternative, 'green,' and community oriented) grocery store that's been Co-opted itself by what could be perceived as a dynastic centralized power with little interest in Co-op principles, on their own (unless they suit their desire to remain unchallenged; i.e., I was waving the banner of the Rochdale Principles when I ran, but no one seemed to care about them then; but now they're brandished in this resolution). I feel uneasy saying the latter, admittedly, because I like the administration (Doug et al.) on an individual basis, but what I say here seems the sad reality behind the appearance. The present admin may run things well enough, keep up community-oriented projects I admire, promot<span>e superwork</span>ing<span>, etc., but what will happen when this administration leaves, and others step in with the same autocratic power structure in place? Much that even the present administration ta</span>k<span>es for </span>g<span>ranted, morally, institutionally</span>, etc., <span>may be o</span>ve<span>rridden</span>. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 17:21:51ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Now, before launching into some criticism, I should say the DFC is certainly more than 'just' a corporation; it's a hybrid of corporate and co-operative principles, with community-related customs lumped in (e.g., superworking). Nevertheless, in my (6 years experience, and two bids for the board), it seems the DFC's co-operative principles are becoming increasingly overshadowed, policy-wise, by <span>the </span>corporate laws and institutional practices (e.g., policy governance). </td> <td> <span>+</span> Now, before launching into some criticism, I should say the DFC is certainly more than 'just' a corporation; it's a hybrid of corporate and co-operative principles, with community-related customs lumped in (e.g., superworking). Nevertheless, in my (6 years experience, and two bids for the board), it seems the DFC's co-operative principles are becoming increasingly overshadowed, policy-wise, by corporate laws and institutional practices (e.g., policy governance). </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 17:04:24ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 202: </td> <td> Line 202: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> <span>Zach N. --</span>["Users/ZacharyNorwood" ZN] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["Users/ZacharyNorwood" ZN] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 17:03:54ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 202: </td> <td> Line 202: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Zach N. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Zach N. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood"<span>&nbsp;ZN</span>] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 17:03:35ZacharyNorwoodComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 180: </td> <td> Line 180: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-03-16 18:03:35'' [[nbsp]] Dear all,<br> + <br> + So the corporate monoculture of DFC, Inc., rears its head.<br> + <br> + Basically all this verbiage boils down to saying "we don't like the boycott because it's 'political' in a manner we find disagreeable--perhaps for unstated political reasons of our own--and so we're willing to supersede the bylaws to take a membership initiative off the ballot."<br> + <br> + Now, before launching into some criticism, I should say the DFC is certainly more than 'just' a corporation; it's a hybrid of corporate and co-operative principles, with community-related customs lumped in (e.g., superworking). Nevertheless, in my (6 years experience, and two bids for the board), it seems the DFC's co-operative principles are becoming increasingly overshadowed, policy-wise, by the corporate laws and institutional practices (e.g., policy governance).<br> + <br> + If the DFC were truly "democratically controlled" and not just putting this label up as a pretense to hide corporate self-interest, it would accept the fact that sometimes democratic initiatives can be problematic on many levels; sometimes 'democracy' veers into ochlocracy, or 'mob rule,' and we get some pretty dumb proposals; and sometimes 'democracy' can bring in needed grassroots change to overthrow overcenteralized powers (the DFC seems one such power, at times); so I urge the membership to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water on this issue. If the board's counter-measure (as stipulated below) were approved, a clear precedent would be set for the Co-op as being no longer truly democratic, and all future membership initiatives, no matter how benign or progressive, may be warded off, curtailed from the start by unnecessary red-tape. And let's face it: the DFC hasn't had any membership initiatives that have passed in ages! I would hope, if nothing else, the boycott group (whose agendas I'm not interested in, per se) at least has a chance to respond to each point, before the board can preempt its right to put a measure on the ballot.<br> + <br> + To add a somewhat anecdotal yet relevant aside, my landlady here in New Zealand, of Jewish descent, has been boycotting Israeli products for a long time, on general ethical grounds on par with boycotting certain types of chocolate that exploit labor in the Ivory Coast, and she's not entirely anti-Zionist herself, at least not in terms of its ideals, but she disavows Israeli political practices, including its means-justify-the-ends history of oppressing the Palestinian peoples (her perspective, not mine; it's a complicated issue, to be sure!). So when I told her about this initiative, some months back, she was surprised there was so much hubbub over it, because, as she said at the time, it's common practice to boycott Israeli products here in NZ, and has been for a long while, at least among co-operatives and wholefood grocers. She added, in passing, that Davis must be truly parochial if there's such a reactionary response, as there seems to be, indeed. (And I am not putting words in her mouth--I was as neutral and cautious in my wording of the matter as I could possibly be, given its potential sensitivity, and not knowing where she would stand--no 'suggestibility' came from me, to mention one of Schacter's useful "seven sins of memory").<br> + <br> + So, we need to step back from this issue and not treat it as another "hot button" culture war type problem, and look at it more from a democratic policy standpoint. I think it's time for members truly interested in DFC's core democratic values as a CO-OPERATIVE, and not a CORPORATION-in-co-op-clothing, to step forward and protect this boycott measure, not for what it stands for, politically, but for its right to exist as a membership driven initiative. If it got the signatures, it deserves to be on the ballot. Period. You can't change the rules of the game when centralized powers don't like what's happening with the old rules. That's autocracy, not democracy.<br> + <br> + And it's ironic, I should add, how the board suddenly comes to life, comes into a position of strength, when it's in the interest of the DFC administration for it to do so. The irony of this should not be lost on anyone familiar with DFC's history, and the difficulty of the board to get anything through the administration-corporate firewall.<br> + <br> + If the initiative is pernicious, or 'politically biased' or not 'neutral' (a vague notion that could conflict with food ethics in general, on another plane), the membership ought to know and be educated about what makes the initiative problematic, or un-cooperative. The membership at large should be educated with neutral statements for and against, and decide on their own druthers whether to vote for this boycott or not, and perhaps have a disinterested party write up the for and against statements. That's the democratic process. What's undemocratic is an underhanded, inside-track preemption method like what I'm seeing in the board's reaction, which, again, fits the definition of an autocracy more than a democracy (and if their resolution passes, the autocratic precedent will unambiguously violate core Co-op principles, to boot; but if there is no ''de jure'' conflict, then there is no problem, as far as the DFC as a corporate entity is concerned, and that is something everyone should understand).<br> + <br> + In sum, this is neither a pro nor con stance regarding the boycott, but a statement about democratic policy. If DFC's co-operative principles can be trumped based on corporate law alone, then people need to wake up to the reality that the Co-op is not really a co-operative, functionally, but a comparatively better (because alternative, 'green,' and community oriented) grocery store that's been Co-opted itself by what could be perceived as a dynastic centralized power with little interest in Co-op principles, on their own (unless they suit their desire to remain unchallenged; i.e., I was waving the banner of the Rochdale Principles when I ran, but no one seemed to care about them then; but now they're brandished in this resolution). I feel uneasy saying the latter, admittedly, because I like the administration (Doug et al.) on an individual basis, but what I say here seems the sad reality behind the appearance. The present admin may run things well enough, keep up community-oriented projects I admire, promoting superworking, etc., but what will happen when this administration leaves, and others step in with the same autocratic power structure in place? Much that even the present administration takes for granted, morally, institutionally, etc., may be overridden.<br> + <br> + Respectfully,<br> + Zach N. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-16 10:58:49DougWalterAdded 3/15 Resolution text <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 42: </td> <td> Line 42: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Here is the resolution of the Food Co-op Board of Directors:</span> </td> <td> <span>+ == March 15, 2010 Resolution of Co-op Board ==<br> + Here is the March 15, 2010 resolution of the Food Co-op Board of Directors, which passed by a unanimous vote:<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', according to our bylaws and articles of incorporation, the primary purpose of our cooperative is to engage in the business of selling food and other household products to the benefit of our members, and other purposes are secondary thereto and shall not limit this primary purpose, and<br> + <br> + Whereas, the change to Article X, Section 2 of our bylaws that reduced the required percentage of member signatures needed to qualify a ballot measure for member vote, from 15% to 5%, included an inherent expectation that the “lawful and proper purpose” clause would be more stringently interpreted and enforced, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', the wording of the initiative proposed demands that the Davis Food Cooperative (DFC) to accept the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions for Palestine (BDS) Campaign's characterization and judgment of Israeli actions as fact, would require us to accept the Global BDS Campaign's tactics as our own, and would allow the Global BDS to determine our compliance with its principles and policies, whatever they may be, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', the wording of the initiative proposed demands that this Board, which has a fiduciary duty to the DFC and its members, subject its authority and discretion in the management and operation of the DFC to BDS, a third party entity that owes no such duty to the DFC or its members, but rather has, as its primary goal, the furtherance of a political movement with aims not necessarily consistent with the aims and goals of the Board or the DFC; and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', the wording of the initiative proposed will necessarily restrict the business, operational, and managerial authority and discretion given to the Board under our bylaws and the laws of the State of California, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', the wording of the initiative proposed is very broad and does not provide practical specificity about the scope of companies, products or items to be covered; leading to such ambiguities and difficulties such as inter alia whether the proposed boycott would cover: (1) products manufactured or distributed by a company whose principal place of business is in Israel versus any company that has any Israeli shareholders; (2) products manufactured or distributed by any company who has partnered or associated itself with an Israeli company, however that term is defined; (3) any item that contains components, which are Israeli or manufactured or distributed (in whole or in part) by Israeli companies, etc., and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', because of the broad and vague wording of the initiative proposed, it would require an unreasonable expenditure of time, money, and resources to determine the DFC’s obligations under the proposed boycott, including the ongoing identification all companies and products which are Israeli, including which products contain components which are Israeli, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', we have already seen evidence of a tense and uneasy atmosphere at the DFC, a reduction in shoppers and sales, disruption to business operations, and distraction from other priorities associated or correlated with the initiative proposed;<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', in response to the proposed initiative, there have already been threatened member resignations and requirement for the return of capital, and threats of permanent loss of members shoppers (and thus loss of sales) by entire groups within the community, etc., and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', our articles grant the cooperative no specific powers to engage in political activity of any kind, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'' the Rochdale Principles, upon which the cooperative movement was founded, properly emphasize the basic principle of political (and religious) neutrality and the dangers of meddling in political (and religious) affairs, and adherence to Cooperative Principles is an End of the organization, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'' modern cooperatives, particularly food cooperatives, that have failed to abide by this essential principle of political neutrality have been harmed by the divisiveness that such issues cause among members and shoppers, including: an unwelcoming atmosphere for all, reduction in shoppers and sales, member resignations and return of capital, staff layoffs, disrupted operations, distraction from priorities, and more, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', the wording of the proposed initiative would require the DFC to violate another Cooperative Principle (cooperation among cooperatives), because the DFC would have to discontinue selling products from Israeli and Palestinian co-operatives, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'' the DFC is not qualified to pass judgment on the legitimacy or illegitemacy of actions or policies of any foreign government, particularly with respect to extraordinary actions by such governments that are invoked in the name of national security, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'' the proper purpose of a member initiative that suggests or recommends action is one that:<br> + (a) is asserted in good faith, (b) supports our established cooperative principles, articles of incorporation, bylaws and ends; (c) provides benefits to our cooperative as a whole; and (d) is truthful and free of distortion and material omission, so as not to confuse or mislead voters; and the proper purpose for a member initiative that requires or demands action is one that in addition to the above,<br> + (e) is for a purpose reserved to shareholders by our bylaws and in accordance with state law, and<br> + <br> + ''Whereas'', in addition to the factors set forth in the foregoing paragraph, in determining whether a proposed member initiative is “proper” under our bylaws, the Board must weigh and balance the following factors: (a) whether, and to what extent, the initiative furthers or inhibits our established cooperative principles, articles of incorporation, bylaws and ends, including without limitation the principles of political and religious neutrality, and cooperation among cooperatives;<br> + (b) whether, and to what extent, the initiative provides benefits to our cooperative, and what the nature of such benefits are;<br> + (c) whether, and to what extent, the initiative suggests versus demands/requires action from the Board or the DFC;<br> + (d) whether the initiative unreasonably interferes with the operation of the DFC, or unreasonably causes loss of membership, capital, or sales;<br> + (e) whether, and to what extent, the initiative interferes with the autonomy or independence of our cooperative;<br> + (f) whether, and to what extent, the initiative interferes with or restricts the managerial discretion, authority, and independence of the Board, or others to whom such discretion and authority is delegated under our bylaws and the laws of the State of California;<br> + (g) whether, and to what extent, the initiative subjects the authority or managerial discretion of the Board (or other DFC management) to third party entities: (i) who do not owe the cooperative any fiduciary duties, and (ii) whose goals may not necessarily coincide with those of the DFC; and<br> + (h) whether, and to what extent, the initiative is sufficiently clear in language and scope to be reasonably understood, and to be practically implemented.<br> + <br> + ''Finding'', that in weighing and balancing the above factors, it is our judgment, in the best interests of the DFC, that the proposed member initiative is not “proper” within the definition of our bylaws;<br> + <br> + ''Therefore'', and without prejudice to our determination regarding whether the proposed member initiative to boycott all Israeli products may be excluded from the ballot based on a failure to specify a lawful purpose, we hereby determine that the initiative may be excluded for failure to specify a proper purpose.<br> + <br> + == February 5, 2010 Resolution of Co-op Board ==<br> + Here is the February 5, 2010 resolution of the Food Co-op Board of Directors, which passed by a unanimous:</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 100: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ == Initial Statement from Co-op General Manager ==</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 65: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ==<span>=</span>Correction to the Davis Enterprise Story of March 10, 2010<span>:</span>==<span>=</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ==<span>&nbsp;</span>Correction to the Davis Enterprise Story of March 10, 2010<span>&nbsp;</span>== </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-10 12:16:23JulieCrossAdded Correction to Davis Enterprise Article from 3/10/10 <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 65: </td> <td> Line 65: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ===Correction to the Davis Enterprise Story of March 10, 2010:===<br> + The previous decision of the Board that the BDS resolution on a boycott of Israeli products is not “lawful” under the bylaws stands. That board action is not being reconsidered. The Board of the Davis Food Co-op is meeting on Monday, March 15, to consider whether the proposed BDS resolution is “proper” under the bylaws. Our bylaws require that any member initiative placed on the ballot be both lawful and proper.<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-02 22:29:06JoePomidorComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 125: </td> <td> Line 125: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-03-02 22:29:06'' [[nbsp]] I've stayed out of this whole thing because, frankly, it's not worth my trouble, but I felt it very amusing that the link just posted, at davisbds.org, says that one of the possible causes for the dropping of the initiative is that people threatened to boycott the Co-op, which would be "bullying tactics", to use their own words. On a page that is in support of a boycott... --["Users/JoePomidor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-02 22:17:43JasonAllerrestored only link to the ["Davis Committee for Palestinian Rights"] page <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> For information about the boycott initiative campaign, please contact the Davis Committee for Palestinian Rights<span>&nbsp;(DCPR)[http://davisbds.org/</span>] at 530-747-0185 or email [[MailTo(bds_davis AT sbcglobal DOT net)]]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> For information about the boycott initiative campaign, please contact the <span>["</span>Davis Committee for Palestinian Rights<span>"</span>] at 530-747-0185 or email [[MailTo(bds_davis AT sbcglobal DOT net)]]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-02 22:11:14patricia-daugherty <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> A group of members of the ["Davis Food Co-op" Co-op] [[<span>MailTo(bds_davis AT sbcglobal DOT net)</span>]] are proposing a [http://www.davisfood.coop/bylaws.html#initiativereferendum member initiative] to have the store boycott Israeli products, and take other actions. The Co-op General Manager has authority under Board Policy GP-10 to direct that products be removed, but has declined to take this action. Members have the right to petition under our ''Bylaws''; they will need to gather the signatures of five percent of Co-op shareholders -- over 500 signatures, since there are over 10,000 members as of 1/1/10. </td> <td> <span>+</span> A group of members of the ["Davis Food Co-op" Co-op] [[<span>http://davisbds.org/</span>]] are proposing a [http://www.davisfood.coop/bylaws.html#initiativereferendum member initiative] to have the store boycott Israeli products, and take other actions. The Co-op General Manager has authority under Board Policy GP-10 to direct that products be removed, but has declined to take this action. Members have the right to petition under our ''Bylaws''; they will need to gather the signatures of five percent of Co-op shareholders -- over 500 signatures, since there are over 10,000 members as of 1/1/10. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> For information about the boycott initiative campaign, please contact the [<span>"Davis Committee for Palestinian Rights"</span>] at 530-747-0185 or email [[MailTo(bds_davis AT sbcglobal DOT net)]]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> For information about the boycott initiative campaign, please contact the <span>Davis Committee for Palestinian Rights (DCPR)</span>[<span>http://davisbds.org/</span>] at 530-747-0185 or email [[MailTo(bds_davis AT sbcglobal DOT net)]]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-02 22:09:07patricia-daugherty <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ||[[MailTo(bds_davis AT sbcglobal DOT net)]]||</span> </td> <td> <span>+ ||[[http://davisbds.org/]]||</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-03-01 13:15:58DP2010Comment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 123: </td> <td> Line 123: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-03-01 13:15:58'' [[nbsp]] I am completely against this boycott because I feel it is one-sided, racist, and just supports the kind of double standard that Israel is held up to. I do not see boycotts going up against Japan for their whale "researching" or against Russian or Chinese goods for their true occupation of Chechnyan and Tibetan territoties, respectively. So why try to punish Israel when it has been trying to make headway at peace for the past 20 years? Isn't that a bit counter-intuitive? As I do not want to ramble, I will just say I completely agree with Ralph Libet and CovertProfessor. I will really lose respect for the Davis community if this boycott, or any boycott against Israel in any other store goes through. Do some research, do some reading, and take a look at the current facts and the recent historical FACTS, and not the propaganda issued forth because frankly it would be sad to see this boycott passed on the basis of Israel needing to release "occupied" lands and needing to stop violating human rights that would not have occured had certain actions been taken by other Arab countries. --["Users/DP2010"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-24 16:49:09rlibet <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 121: </td> <td> Line 121: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Last Sunday I did a search in the Co-Op for Israeli products. What did I find? Almost nothing --- a few bottles of wine, a bit of "bulk" couscous, and 3-</span>4<span>&nbsp;almost-hidden tubes of hand cream! </span>This boycott initiative is definitely not about influencing Israel or helping Palestinians. Come on !! Who will notice?? The initiative is completely self-serving, and is:<span><br> - </span> 1) VAGUE ---- It includes a condition that Israel “end its occupation and colonization of all Palestinian lands..." What do they mean by "Palestinian lands"? Are they referring to (just) the West Bank and Gaza? If so, they are conveniently ignoring that Israel pulled out of every square inch of Gaza 4.5 years ago, (and literally pulled out settlers one by one as well). Or are they also referring to Jaffa, Acre, and the southern Galilee? Or, (as I am quite sure), are they referring to all of Israel?<span><br> -</span> 2) A NIGHTMARE (for the Co-Op’s Board to enforce) ---- the resolution states that the Co-Op “will refrain from supporting companies that sell products...to Israel and which are used to violate the human rights of Palestinians.” Is the Board to pass judgement on whether, directly or indirectly, a product of Intel , Coca-Cola, General Mills, etc., was used to violate human rights? And who is to determine what constitutes a “human rights violation”? This is untenable.<span><br> -</span> 3) ONE-SIDED ---- The resolution focuses on the Palestinian refugees, (approximately 650,000 -- in 1948) and makes no mention of the SAME NUMBER of Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Moslem countries , (1949-1951, primarily), or the 600,000 or more Jewish refugees from Europe and its Holocaust. And why are we not boycotting China and Russia, (brutal occupiers of Tibet and Chechnya), or perhaps the U.S. (for colonization of Native American lands, and/or the killing of Iraqi civilians)?? Why no blaming of Jordan and Egypt for NOT creating a Palestinian state during the 19 years THEY controlled the West Bank and Gaza??<span><br> -</span> 4) UNREALISTIC ---- The “right of ...return” of all the descendants of the Palestinian refugees would mean the end of Israel and will not be a component of a future peace agreement , (....and therefore we could still be boycotting long after a there is a two-state solution, with peace in the region, since that will happen without fulfilling the “conditions” of this initiative). <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;--- </span>Ralph Libet </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + 2/2</span>4<span>/10 --</span>This boycott initiative is definitely not about influencing Israel or helping Palestinians. Come on !! Who will notice?? The initiative is completely self-serving, <span>( it may make some people fell better about themselves) , </span>and is: 1) VAGUE ---- It includes a condition that Israel “end its occupation and colonization of all Palestinian lands..." What do they mean by "Palestinian lands"? Are they referring to (just) the West Bank and Gaza? If so, they are conveniently ignoring that Israel pulled out of every square inch of Gaza 4.5 years ago, (and literally pulled out settlers one by one as well). Or are they also referring to Jaffa, Acre, and the southern Galilee? Or, (as I am quite sure), are they referring to all of Israel?<span>&nbsp;</span> 2) A NIGHTMARE (for the Co-Op’s Board to enforce) ---- the resolution states that the Co-Op “will refrain from supporting companies that sell products...to Israel and which are used to violate the human rights of Palestinians.” Is the Board to pass judgement on whether, directly or indirectly, a product of Intel , Coca-Cola, General Mills, etc., was used to violate human rights? And who is to determine what constitutes a “human rights violation”? This is untenable.<span>&nbsp;</span> 3) ONE-SIDED ---- The resolution focuses on the Palestinian refugees, (approximately 650,000 -- in 1948) and makes no mention of the SAME NUMBER of Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Moslem countries , (1949-1951, primarily), or the 600,000 or more Jewish refugees from Europe and its Holocaust. And why are we not boycotting China and Russia, (brutal occupiers of Tibet and Chechnya), or perhaps the U.S. (for colonization of Native American lands, and/or the killing of Iraqi civilians)?? Why no blaming of Jordan and Egypt for NOT creating a Palestinian state during the 19 years THEY controlled the West Bank and Gaza??<span>&nbsp;</span> 4) UNREALISTIC ---- The “right of ...return” of all the descendants of the Palestinian refugees would mean the end of Israel and will not be a component of a future peace agreement , (....and therefore we could still be boycotting long after a there is a two-state solution, with peace in the region, since that will happen without fulfilling the “conditions” of this initiative). Ralph Libet </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-24 16:45:43rlibet <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 93: </td> <td> Line 93: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 120: </td> <td> Line 121: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ Last Sunday I did a search in the Co-Op for Israeli products. What did I find? Almost nothing --- a few bottles of wine, a bit of "bulk" couscous, and 3-4 almost-hidden tubes of hand cream! This boycott initiative is definitely not about influencing Israel or helping Palestinians. Come on !! Who will notice?? The initiative is completely self-serving, and is:<br> + 1) VAGUE ---- It includes a condition that Israel “end its occupation and colonization of all Palestinian lands..." What do they mean by "Palestinian lands"? Are they referring to (just) the West Bank and Gaza? If so, they are conveniently ignoring that Israel pulled out of every square inch of Gaza 4.5 years ago, (and literally pulled out settlers one by one as well). Or are they also referring to Jaffa, Acre, and the southern Galilee? Or, (as I am quite sure), are they referring to all of Israel?<br> + 2) A NIGHTMARE (for the Co-Op’s Board to enforce) ---- the resolution states that the Co-Op “will refrain from supporting companies that sell products...to Israel and which are used to violate the human rights of Palestinians.” Is the Board to pass judgement on whether, directly or indirectly, a product of Intel , Coca-Cola, General Mills, etc., was used to violate human rights? And who is to determine what constitutes a “human rights violation”? This is untenable.<br> + 3) ONE-SIDED ---- The resolution focuses on the Palestinian refugees, (approximately 650,000 -- in 1948) and makes no mention of the SAME NUMBER of Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Moslem countries , (1949-1951, primarily), or the 600,000 or more Jewish refugees from Europe and its Holocaust. And why are we not boycotting China and Russia, (brutal occupiers of Tibet and Chechnya), or perhaps the U.S. (for colonization of Native American lands, and/or the killing of Iraqi civilians)?? Why no blaming of Jordan and Egypt for NOT creating a Palestinian state during the 19 years THEY controlled the West Bank and Gaza??<br> + 4) UNREALISTIC ---- The “right of ...return” of all the descendants of the Palestinian refugees would mean the end of Israel and will not be a component of a future peace agreement , (....and therefore we could still be boycotting long after a there is a two-state solution, with peace in the region, since that will happen without fulfilling the “conditions” of this initiative). --- Ralph Libet</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-24 16:00:35rlibet <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 79: </td> <td> Line 79: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- http://www.jpost.com/Cooperations/Google/Default.aspx?q=poll%20/%20arab%20views%20of%20Jews; a recent Pew research poll that<br> - flies in the face of the boycott reolution's assertions that that Israel treats it's Arab citizens poorly</span> </td> <td> <span>+ http://www.jpost.com/Cooperations/Google/Default.aspx?q=poll%20/%20arab%20views%20of%20Jews; a recent Pew research poll that flies in the face of the boycott reolution's assertions that that Israel treats it's Arab citizens poorly<br> + http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=3&amp;id=1404--- A Harvard poll showing Israeli Arabs LIKE living in Israel (more than anywhere else!)!!</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-24 15:51:28rlibet <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 79: </td> <td> Line 79: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ http://www.jpost.com/Cooperations/Google/Default.aspx?q=poll%20/%20arab%20views%20of%20Jews; a recent Pew research poll that<br> + flies in the face of the boycott reolution's assertions that that Israel treats it's Arab citizens poorly</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-21 13:41:17EmilyHughes(just correcting my typo) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 118: </td> <td> Line 118: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2010-02-21 13:40:25'' [[nbsp]] Glad to hear that the current petition will not (as of now) be on the ballot. I have been a Davis Food Co-Op member for over 5 years...if this comes to a vote and passes I'll be gone. I love the Co-Op, but this is ridiculous. I support <span>and </span>my Jewish friends and family. I also support my Palestinian friends and community members. This is not the answer--passing this "initiative" would send an unproductive message of hate. --["Users/EmilyHughes"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2010-02-21 13:40:25'' [[nbsp]] Glad to hear that the current petition will not (as of now) be on the ballot. I have been a Davis Food Co-Op member for over 5 years...if this comes to a vote and passes I'll be gone. I love the Co-Op, but this is ridiculous. I support my Jewish friends and family. I also support my Palestinian friends and community members. This is not the answer--passing this "initiative" would send an unproductive message of hate. --["Users/EmilyHughes"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-21 13:40:25EmilyHughesComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-21 13:40:25'' [[nbsp]] Glad to hear that the current petition will not (as of now) be on the ballot. I have been a Davis Food Co-Op member for over 5 years...if this comes to a vote and passes I'll be gone. I love the Co-Op, but this is ridiculous. I support and my Jewish friends and family. I also support my Palestinian friends and community members. This is not the answer--passing this "initiative" would send an unproductive message of hate. --["Users/EmilyHughes"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-19 22:44:49CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 116: </td> <td> Line 116: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I am glad to hear that the Co-op board made this decision. As one recent letter to the editor in the Enterprise suggested, the vote would have made many people feel unwelcome at the co-op, regardless of its outcome. --["Users/CovertProfessor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-19 16:42:15DougWalter"Punchline" from the PDF file, update my comment <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 44: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ This letter concludes:<br> + ''Therefore the Davis Food Cooperative respectfully concludes that the proposed member initiative calling for an anti-Israel boycott does not qualify under its bylaws to be presented to the membership on the ballot.<br> + <br> + As a result of this resolution, the Board of Directors will not be putting the current “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” petition on the ballot.<br> + <br> + The Board respects the rights of members to propose member sponsored initiatives and will act in accordance to the bylaws with respect to these initiatives.''</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 109: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Subsequent to the Board resolution of 2/5/10, declaring that the Board of Directors will not be putting the current petition on the ballot, the collection of signatures has been suspended. The proponents and opponents of the BDS movement are still tabling on the Co-op Patio (as of mid-February). --["Users/DougWalter"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-19 16:37:56DougWalterMoved many comments to BDS against Israel page. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- || - ||</span> </td> <td> <span>+ || Davis Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice in the Middle East ||</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 85: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ Many interesting comments were about the Middle East and not particularly about the Food Co-op or the proposed member initiative. Find them at ["Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions against Israel"].</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 108: </td> <td> Line 109: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------<br> - ''2010-01-26 17:01:30'' [[nbsp]] I wonder why the supporters of the petition are singling out Israel. Hmmm... I don't see a petition to boycott the goods of pretty much every country in North and South America for displacing or killing the native populations of those regions, or demanding that the US return its land to the Native Americans, who clearly were there first. Nor do I see one proposing that the people who live in Israel who were driven from Europe and Asia during the Holocaust be allowed to reclaim their old homes in Europe. Nor do I see one protesting the wide variety of human rights abuses currently going on throughout the world. Nor do I see one protesting Hamas lobbing rockets into Israel. Or Russia doing all sorts of nasty things to Chechnya. Or China with respect to Mongolia. Or Syria with respect to Lebanon. Or Iran with respect to much of its own population. Or North Korea with respect to its population. Or...<br> - <br> - Nor do I see any protests of the military and financial aid that the US gives to may other countries. The US donates or sells weapons systems to countries throughout the world. We give substantial aid to South Korea, but you aren't protesting that. We give substantial military aid to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but you aren't protesting that. We give all sorts of aid to all sorts of countries for all sorts of reasons, and that aid either benefits their militaries directly, or allows them to divert funds that would otherwise go to their militaries to supporting other projects. But you aren't protesting that.<br> - <br> - So why then, are the protesters applying a different standard to Israel than they appear to be applying to the rest of the world? If these things bother them, why do they not protest all of the countries that violate their standards, rather than just this particular one? Why not create a petition that specifies standards of behavior that *every* country must meet, so that all such countries are boycotted if they violate them? I don't see them doing that. On the other hand, if these things do not bother them, why protest it at all? Seems like quite the double standard to me! --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-01-26 17:08:49'' [[nbsp]] I don't support the boycott, but I do generally think that "how can you oppose x when you don't also oppose y" is not really a useful arguement in modern society. There's just too much to oppose out there. If you went with that approach, you couldn't oppose anything.<br> - <br> - I think the real question is: "why do you oppose x" with x = israel. But in this case that is kind of a long and boring conversation which I really don't want to have and now regret bringing up. Suffice it to say that I would never, ever join a boycott of all israeli businesses and I have reasons which I believe are sufficient for feeling that way but choose not to discuss based on multiple past experiences on the subject. --["Users/rfrazier"]<br> - <br> - * I agree completely about x and y and not wanting to talk about x. Also to assume that people DO NOT or are not making these decisions about products from other countries is a pretty big assumption. --["Users/pxlated"]<br> - * Pxl: While I don't doubt that there are lots of people who are, as you say, boycotting products from other countries, the protest described here applies to only one country. If you believe that human rights violations are bad, and that the Food Co-Op should take some action to protest those violations, then the protest should be against *any* country that violates those rights, right? Surely, it isn't good to support human rights violations in some countries, especially if you believe they are wrong in other countries. (What makes people in some countries more deserving of human rights than others?) And it would take just a few changes in wording to switch this from being a protest of one country's actions to those of every country that violates human rights. But I don't see that being done here. So it seems reasonable to conclude that the issue is not, in fact, with human rights violations in general (as that isn't what is being protested), but with one specific country. But there is tremendous historical evidence to suggest that there is something other than altruism at work here. --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-01-26 17:25:10'' [[nbsp]] rfrazier: I sort of agree with what you are saying (certainly the real question of "Why do you oppose Israel"), but I think that the other part is just as important. If you support human rights, then why are the rights of only a certain group of people important, instead of all groups who have their rights violated? (For that matter, why not protest the surrounding countries which have refused to let the Palestinians across their own borders, but have supplied them with arms and funding?) If you do not support human rights, then why be unhappy that someone gets their rights violated at all? It seems like the protesting group only cares about the rights of one specific group, which in itself is rather hypocritical. My guess is that the real answer has a lot more to do with politics, religion, antisemitism, and access to resources (especially water) in that region of the planet than it has to do with human rights issues. --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - * I agree that your question is important in as far as it unmasks the true agenda, that is the support of Palestine against Israel on ideological, nationalistic and in some cases possibly even racist or personal grounds, not out of generalized concern for "human rights", that said, I wouldn't want the arguement extended to "we shouldn't do anything about human rights abuses in nation X unless we also do it in every other nation on earth" - that would lead to no action on vital causes ever. -rfrazier<br> - * If people were really outraged about human rights violations, they would be protesting against Iran or North Korea. Hell, even China. But then again, I'm politically conservative, what do I know? --["Users/hankim"]<br> - * Have you seen all the "Free Tibet" stickers around Davis? Thats about as far as most people go here except for eurocentric stuff like Israel-Palestine. I think there is still an active ["Amnesty International"] group here though, and there are human rights talks sometimes at the ["Davis Friends Meeting"]. I actually prefer simply learning the history of world conflicts to outright protest, and these groups work well for that. --["Users/NickSchmalenberger"]<br> - * I am no fan of communism, but I prefer it to a theocracy so I am sort of on the opposite side of the whole "Free Tibet" thing. --["Users/hankim"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-01-27 18:16:15'' [[nbsp]] Right On, "IDoNotExist"...hypocrisy and double standards are having a "field day" -- rlibet --["Users/rlibet"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-02 18:03:01'' [[nbsp]] You people will really believe anything you hear about human rights issues, as long as it has a right context, without any concrete statistics or proof. Do you even know that Palestinians in general and the Arab world have created this problem for Israel in the first place? Why do you think Palestinians have such problems right now anyway? Yea, sure other Arab/Muslim countries could have taken in remaining Palestinians but they didn't, one of the reasons being to continue to hammer Israel politically and now socially by having internal unrest. And before you think about believing some of the half truths that are presented by Palestinians against Israel, read Alan Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel." Yes, he is a Jew, but he takes on an unbiased approach to the Palestinian/Arab-Israel conflict, providing statistics and facts rather than blurred ideological claims like most anti-Semites. And yes, I think this boycott is anti-Semetic because it affects the entire population of Israel and all the Jews living in there, including the Arabs and Palestinians and Christians because you are screwing up their economy, rather than making a point to the government itself. Now I'm not saying Israel is perfect or that Jews are perfect. I disagree with Israel on a lot of things, which I think is a good thing as long as it is done constructively, and I sure as hell met a number of egotistical, self-righteous, asshole Jews. Just please think twice before you believe what someone tells you without giving you actual proof, or citing actual information. Read "The Case for Israel" and you'll finally understand why there is still such a big issue in the middle east with Israel to this day, sadly.<br> - <br> - By the way how do I get a hold of the Davis Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice in the Middle East so I can sign the counter-petition?<br> - <br> - And by the way "IDoNotExist" I like your observation, particularly Israel has had to deal with double standards ever since their inception. God forbid Israel retaliates against Hammas military targets for launching missiles into Israeli civilian centers because the world doesn't want to upset the terrorists. People would rather blame Israel for even thinking of retaliating because that's the way it has been for a longer time (e.g. blaming Israel for starting the Six Day War and claiming Gaza, West Bank, and Golan Heights after victory according to rules of war and then being forced to return those territories) and it's easier. --["Users/DP2010"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-03 10:44:13'' [[nbsp]] @ DP2010, you say the following: "Yea, sure other Arab/Muslim countries could have taken in remaining Palestinians but they didn't, one of the reasons being to continue to hammer Israel politically and now socially by having internal unrest."<br> - OKKKK where do i start with this? alright, first of all i can tell you are a zionist. now lets think a little about your saying that the arabs should have taken remaining palestinians. As a palestinian, I will not and i will never ever want to live in any other part of the world but Palestine. Why? it is my country. since when? since Jesus Christ and before jesus christ. Once upon a time, when one of my great grandfathers was sitting under an olive tree in the mountains of palestine, Moses and the jews came by from Egypt and they asked for water. He gave them water and let them into his own house. My point is clear, Palestinians are palestinians, jordanians are jordanians, leabanese are leabanese, but we are all friends, or at least we were before the zionist injection into the area. So i will counter argue your point and ask you, Why did not america and the rest of the world take the jews? I would think that would have been a better idea. Palestinians are not Nazis, we didnt cause the Holocaust. So why do we have to pay the price instead of the Nazis? Just be fair mate, when you talk about palestinians please think of them as human beings not animals. Do not forget that Palestinians were jewish once upon a time, but some of us converted to Christainity, some to islam, and some remained jewish. Yes, Jewish palestinians do exist.<br> - The next point is that you refer to palestinians as terrorists. I dont want to argue much about this but i will say two things. Do you know what jewish hagana gangs are? (back in the 20s,30s, and 40s). my next point is simply "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". and may you live in peace and may peace be upon Palestine and Israel. Keep hope alive.<br> - P.S: Watch the documentary "Occupation 101" to understand why palestinians act the way they do.<br> - here is a link to part 1 and you can navigate from there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SbjAanvUqs --["Users/Palestina"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-03 11:49:46'' [[nbsp]] Actually, the US DID take in the Jews. After WW2, the majority of them went to one of several places. The middle east was one place. But an even larger number immigrated to the US (and also to Canada). In fact, there is a larger Jewish population in the US than in Israel.<br> - <br> - I don't think that the claim that someone's ancestors lived somewhere therefore it is their own land makes sense. That area of the middle east has been under the control of quite a few different groups over the years, including the Romans and the British, the Persians, the Ottoman Empire, the Jews, and others. In pretty much every place in the world, groups of people have migrated over time, either because they wanted to, or because they were forced to for one reason or another (for example, because another group forced them to, or because of changes in environmental conditions.) But the fact that your ancestors once lived in an area doesn't give you the right to claim it for yourself. (Wow, if I could lay claim to all of the different places in the world that my own ancestors came from, I would own a pretty large chunk of the Earth's surface! Of course, so would everyone else whose ancestors lived in the same places, and the people who currently live there. That would be a terrible mess, with everyone fighting over random pieces of land that their ancestors owned hundreds or thousands of years ago, wouldn't it?) Just about everyone on the planet has ancestors in the Nile Delta region. Does it make sense for everyone to claim that as their ancestral home and then fight over it for the rest of time? The land that Davis is located on used to be owned by various Native American groups, by the Spanish, by people who came here searching for gold, by the Davis family (they owned the farm that became the City of Davis eventually), and by a whole succession of people who have owned various patches of land within it. Should they all lay claim to it and kill each other over it? There are far better and more productive things to do in life.<br> - <br> - As for the use of violence, blaming all members of a group (no matter which one) for the violent acts of a small percentage of the members of that group is just dumb, and leads to more violence and hatred. However, it might be time for the Palestinians to try a new strategy. The use of bombings and missiles has not worked, and clearly does not work. Instead, it's lead to fear and anger on the Israeli side, and made it politically infeasible for its leaders not to take a hard line. This is not a good strategy. Look at what the use of fear and anger has done in other countries around the world. Usually, it leads to prejudice and hatred among the fearful, who often respond with violence, crackdowns, restrictive laws, or other unpleasant methods. It leads to a cycle of violence in which both sides lose.<br> - <br> - I'm pretty sure that Hamas uses violence to promote itself and keep itself in power. Every Hamas attack leads to a strong counterattack from Israel, which increases Hamas' internal political support. (It also provides various services that also increase its political support.) So it's in Hamas' interest to continue the cycle of violence. But that's not going to improve the situation for the Palestinian people. Certainly hasn't worked for them so far! Every attack is a justification for a counterattack, which is a justification for a new attack. Stop it. It's not working. It's insane. It just leads to misery. Try something else.<br> - <br> - It seems to me that a far better negotiating tactic would be to turn public support against the use of violence, withdraw support for Hamas, and to never again use violence as a negotiating tactic. The use of peace in negotiation has been proven many many times to work. For example, it got the British out of India. It was at the core of the Civil Rights movement in the US. And it forced the overthrow of various regimes throughout Eastern Europe many times since 1991. In Northern Ireland, decades of bombings left the population in fear and misery, which ended only when the IRA decided to negotiate peacefully.<br> - <br> - So...<br> - <br> - 1) Stop using violence. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked. It doesn't improve things for anyone.<br> - 2) Having ancestors who lived somewhere doesn't give you claim to that place.<br> - 3) Lots of people's ancestors lived there. So if ancestry DID give you claim to a piece of land, you'd still have a whole bunch of other people with ancestors who could also lay claim to it.<br> - 4) Not everyone within a group of people is the same, has the same views, or has the same objectives. I would imagine that *most* people on both sides of the situation really just want to live happily and peacefully. Rather than blaming everyone on either side for the current situation, why not find a way that you personally can contribute to a peaceful solution, without blame or hatred, and end the violence? --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - * Bravo. Though I will say there are a few times in history where violence has worked but I don't think a concrete example of that exists past WWII.--["Users/OliviaY"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-03 15:04:56'' [[nbsp]] Palestina first of all you assume a lot of things in your argument. I am not a Zionist, I'm just a supporter of having a Jewish state to call a home. I am providing feasible evidence and nothing else. To call me a Zionist is a bit prejudiced on your part, especially because there are very few if any Zionists left to this day ideologically as Israel is now an existing state.<br> - <br> - Second, you cannot assume that I am a Palestinian hater or treat them like animals. I respect all people. I have said nothing unfair or prejudiced or bad about Palestinians, in fact the only people I have called "some assholes" if you notice are some fellow Jews.<br> - <br> - Third, as IDoNotExist says, you cannot lay claim to a geographic region just because your ancestors lived there. In fact Palestinians by law have not owned "Palestine", "Israel", "Judea" or whatever you want to call the region since 1880 because the majority of Palestinians legally sold their land to immigrating European Jews because they had no use for the land. It was nothing but sands and malaria-filled swamps. They couldn't grow anything on the land so they sold it to the Jews.<br> - <br> - Fourth, America did take in Jews, maybe not during WW2 (maybe due to some anti-Semetism, but that's not the issue at hand) but before and after WW2 they certainly did. And IDoNotExist states correctly, the Jewish populace in the U.S. is greater than in Israel in fact.<br> - <br> - Fifth, do not even start on the Nazi issue here because you apparently do not know that many Palestinians were in fact Nazis during WW2, communicating with Hitler for a plan to get Jews out of Israel and into Germany, as well as building concentration camps and gas chambers right in "Palestine" to kill Jews there and then. It was the Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem who support this violence and even traveled to Germany to talk with Hitler and tour Auschwitz. So even though Palestinians may not have CAUSED the Holocaust they definitely contributed to it. In fact one of the reasons Jews got the land for Israel is because Palestinians were fighting along side Nazis and because Jews were fighting alongside the Allies in Africa and Europe.<br> - <br> - Sixth, I did not say Palestinians are terrorists. I said Hamas is a terrorist organization which governs and controls most of Gaza and commits terrorist acts against Israel, including launching scud missiles into Israeli civilian sectors, which in fact is quite true. And yes I do know that the organized Hagana militia were Jewish freedom fighters who committed acts of terror. I do not agree with their tactics and neither did Ben Gurion, which is why Hagana was disbanded after the inception of Israel. I do not see such action taken by Palestinian people. In fact what I do hear about is continuing attacking Israel and continuing causing social unrest -- very few Palestinians and Arabs for that matter are peaceful with Israel.<br> - <br> - Unfortunately, as whoever reading this can see, I feel the need to repeat myself. Educate yourself and learn the facts before you start acting on this Boycott or start arguing that Israel has no right to exist or whatever. Don't succumb to propaganda half-truths and lies because people will find out the truth eventually whether you like it or not. Palestina, I'll even make you a deal -- if you read Alan Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel" (the one book I ask anyone who cares about Middle East history, stability, or Isareli-Arab/Palestinian relations to read) then I will watch Occupation 101, even though I know why Palestinians act the way they do. Nonetheless I will watch just so you can read for yourself the sort of facts and arguments presented against many accusations against Israel and the Jews. --["Users/DP2010"]<br> - * well said. --["users/rfrazier"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-03 18:57:57'' [[nbsp]] It's funny how a small piece of land with few strategically important resources has caused to much conflict and anger inside and outside of our wiki community. This is even more ridiculous than all of the past conflicts regarding ["ASUCD"] related issues. I think we should all handle this issue the same way we handled what happened in Rwanda in 1994 and move on. --["Users/PaulAmnuaypayoat"]<br> - * I think Rwanda was pretty glossed over from the beginning, with the Clinton administration being reluctant to call it genocide and everything. At the same time, I think the causes of genocide in general and the Israel/Palestinian conflict are really resource allocation problems and until these are solved violence will probably continue. My opinion has been there should be one democratic state and if Zionists are a minority in that state, oh well. Maybe I should read "The Case for Israel"... --["Users/NickSchmalenberger"]<br> - * I agree Nick. One state for all of them, where everyone is equal under the law and ruled by a secular government with no official religion, like our own country. I also never read "The Case for Israel", but I feel that our time would be better spent promoting the one state idea we seem to agree on. - ["Paul Amnuaypayoat"]<br> - * I suspect that the Israelis would not be at all happy with that solution. Such a state would be majority Palestinian, and would have radically different laws than the current state. Given that the Palestinians have been run by a series of dictators and violent terrorist groups (or in the current case, a weak and ineffective government plus a terrorist group which has the stated goal of destroying Israel) over the years, I wouldn't be too optimistic about such a state remaining a democracy for long. Also, you would have two very different cultures, with lots of people who strongly dislike each other, and with a record of violence towards each other, stuck in the same country. Not good. Generally, countries like that stay stable only when there is a strong dictator in power to quell any internal strife. When the dictator disappears, the two cultures start killing each other. Examples: Rwanda, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, parts of Mexico, etc. (Also, possibly India and Pakistan, since those two were artificially split.) As for handling this the way we handled Rwanda, we pretty much ignored it, and several million people died in one of the largest genocides in history. --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 01:55:04'' [[nbsp]] alright, you say the palestinians shall stop the violence. Why dont we reverse the equation and say why wouldn't the IDF stop harrassing palestinians in the palestinian terretories? why wouldnt they remove all the settelments and let palestinans have control over themselves. Israel forced palestinians to carry guns and blow themselves up. Lets not blame palestinians for all the violence, where in reality most of the damage is done by Israel. Just look at the stats of killed, injured, imprisioned, people. Compare the numbers of houses demolished on both sides. 0 houses on the israeli side vs.thousands of palestinian houses. Lets not try to hide the sun with one hand.<br> - You ask me to educate myself. I really do not need your eduacation mate. I ve lived long enough under the israeli occupation that i know well enough about the conflict. Btw, History is usually written by the winner.<br> - SOME palestinians may have turned to germany in WW2 for 2 reasons. first, they wanted to get rid of the british mandate, which favored a zionist state over a palestinian state. second, they were alarmed of the huge numbers of jews coming into palestine at the time. Do not forget that arabs are simites so how could they be anti-simitic?<br> - Actually I am not very much supportive of this boycott. I do not care. This boycott will not bring me back my grandfather's house in haifa or his olive gardens in west jerusalem. In fact, I want people to educate themselves a little more about the conflict.<br> - I will read the book.<br> - I think you would enjoy reading "Blood Brothers" by Elias Chacour, a christian palestinian who lives inside the israeli borders.<br> - <br> - --["Users/Palestina"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 03:23:34'' [[nbsp]] I'd agree that the boycott won't change anything (although it has apparently promoted discussion on the Wiki!) I'd agree that Israel shouldn't be building more settlements in the disputed areas. I imagine that's eventually intended to be used for negotiation, but it really seems dumb to me. No one has ever forced anyone to blow themselves up. That is a choice, and you get zero sympathy from most people when that happens (certainly not from most people in the US). In fact, any attack that deliberately targets civilians hurts the Palestinian case in the eyes of most of the world. If Israel does something that hurts or kills civilians, take the higher ground and tell the story, but don't kill more civilians in return. People just want to live their lives on both sides. They didn't do anything to deserve to be attacked. So don't do it.<br> - <br> - As I understand it, Israel knocks down structures when they are used to store or launch weapons, or as bases for Hamas. If a house is used to launch a missile at Israel, Israel knocks down the house. That's a rather strong disincentive for launching rockets at Israel, don't you think? As for Israel causing more damage, there's a very simple solution to that. Just stop attacking Israel. Everyone knows that Israel will respond with more force than is used against it. It's done so for years. When the attacks have stopped, Israel has stopped responding. Seems pretty obvious to me. This obviously isn't the fault of all of the Palestinians - just the ones who choose to launch attacks. But you (the general you) KNOW that Israel will attack with greater force. Every time. So why in the world would you (the general you, not you specifically) keep doing it?! Certainly, you (the general you) shouldn't keep attacking Israel and then complain that they hit back harder. You (the general you) KNOW they will. So just stop! And you know that when Israel responds, it will have the effect of making things worse for innocent Palestinians who happen to get in the way. So don't attack them. Take the moral high ground. Protest non-violently. It consistently achieves better results. And seriously. Don't reject every offering in every peace negotiation. I've watched Israel make offer after offer over the years, and the various Palestinian governments reject every single one of them, no matter how good they were. It seems to me that those governments had two objectives: 1) Keeping Israel around as an enemy to perpetuate their own popularity and keep themselves in power, and 2) to take a hard line that NO solution would be acceptable except for ones that result in the end of Israel (which obviously no Israeli government could ever agree to.) It does not seem to me that those governments were interested in achieving any sort of real solution.<br> - <br> - Personally, I think there should be two separate states. Even better if some other country has a strip of land between them as a buffer. Palestine agrees not to attack Israel. Israel agrees not to attack Palestine. Everyone lives peacefully. Hopefully, they even learn to get along with each other and cooperate. Wouldn't that be wonderful?<br> - <br> - I simply can't believe that people (on both sides) are spending their whole lives making both themselves and other people miserable over a tiny little strip of land. How many more people have to die before people come to their senses? If every attack has a counter attack, and every counter attack another attack, the cycle of violence will never end. Lots of people will die on both sides. The Palestinians won't improve their situation. You'll still be at it 300 years from now. I'm sorry that you can't live in your grandfather's old house. I can't either. I can't even live in the one I grew up in. But that's life, and I can't do anything about it. Seriously. You're not going to live in that house in the future. That's reality. So you can either choose to dream about living in that one house and choose not to be happy with any house but that specific house. You can yell and scream and boycott a food co-op that has absolutely no involvement at all in events in the middle east. Or you can do whatever you can to live the best life that you can given the life that you've found yourself in. Maybe you can make a major contribution to humanity. Cure a disease. Save a life. Protect the environment. Prevent a war. Encourage others to do the same. Or you can support an endless cycle of violence that won't bring back that house won't help the Palestinians (certainly hasn't yet!), won't help the Israelis (certainly hasn't yet!), and will just result in more death and destruction.<br> - <br> - You can help stop this. --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 11:50:26'' [[nbsp]] I disagree with you IDoNotExist about a few points here and I will try to address them all.<br> - Since you mentioned the peace process, I will start with that one.<br> - <br> - The Final status issues. It refers to the supposedly so complicated issues. By coincidence, these issues are to be addressed by the international court.<br> - <br> - 1. Borders. The court said the principle says that it is illegal to acquire territories by war. Same as in the situation when Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait. The US intervened and said you are not allowed to that. This is fundamental. A country has to have their borders. This brings us back to the question of the wall. The wall is built inside the Palestinian territories. If Israel wants their security, they can build a wall inside their borders or at least on the borders. It’s like if you are neighbor decides they want to build a fence through your swimming pool. So for a two state solution as you mentioned, Palestinians must have their own borders in order to have a state.<br> - <br> - 2. Settlements. The court said it is illegal for an occupying power to transfer their population to the occupied territories (article 49 of the 4th Geneva conventions) . So all of the settlements are illegal. Just a side note about the settlements, I believe you should watch the documentary “The Iron Wall.” It is a good one about the settlements and the wall.<br> - <br> - 3. East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem was acquired the same way parts of the west bank were acquired. So East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians according to the court.<br> - <br> - 4. The refugees. Under international law, refugees have the right to return.<br> - <br> - The vote was 14 to 1. No controversy. The only negative vote came from the American judge. These issues were simple under international law. Even the American judge was very careful to qualify his vote. He said “.in fact I agree with the majority” and about the settlements he said “ I agree with the majority”<br> - <br> - So what peace process are we talking about? How can we start a process before we provide the raw material? how can you say that Israel has made offers? As you said, they build settlements to negotiate. Just to make it simple, X takes over all of your property then X agrees to give you everything but your favorite car because X has already given it to his oldest and favorite son. In reality, during the peace talks, the Palestinians offered to give up the right of return for the refugees and agreed to only take 95% of the land that belongs to them under the international law. So now tell me, who is making sacrifices? The Israeli government does not want peace. I will yet admit that many Israelis want peace but they do not have power over the majority.<br> - <br> - As can be seen, a two states solution is impossible. I believe there is no such thing. How could the Palestinians have a country when they don’t have borders, they don’t have control over 42% of what is supposed to be their country, and they have a foreign nation (settlements) living inside their territories.<br> - Let us now talk about house demolitions, and checkpoints. I am sorry to tell you that house demolition does not only apply to bases of hamas. House demolition is a way to acquire land. Many houses have been demolished because they happen to be close to the newly built settlements or in the way of the wall. Since the wall and the settlements are illegal then Israel has no right to take one’s property to build the most racist and radical neighbor hoods on the surface of this earth. Settlements are occupied by the most radical jews, and more than 80% of them are armed. They often attack the neighboring Palestinians under complete protection by the IDF. When we talk about settlements, we are not only talking about a peaceful setting where people are there only to live. We are talking about Jewish militias who live inside the Palestinians territories, and are always harassing their neighboring Arabs. And as I said you should see “The Iron Wall”. It is on YouTube.<br> - <br> - The checkpoints divide up the Palestinian cities. Between each Palestinian city, there are many checkpoints. Everyone has to stop and everyone has to be checked. You can only hope that the soldiers are in good mood for that day or you will not be able to go to school, work, or just visit your family in a different Palestinian city. I was once put on a checkpoint for 4 hours because the soldier noticed a picture of Jesus Christ in my wallet. He abused me and said a few things about Christianity that I will not mention here.<br> - <br> - I know I will never return to my grandfather’s house, but I at least I hope that I could keep the house I own in Bethlehem now.<br> - <br> - I beg you please to not only listen to one side have to offer but listen to the other side. A just small tiny example before I end this. X was shot by the IDF in Bethlehem a few years ago. X was a Christian. X was not involved politically. X was in his car going to place Y. unfortunately, the soldiers in the tank decided they wanted to kill X. 6 bullets in the head and X is dead. The news reported that X was Hamas militant (even though X was in a Christian community) and that he was driving towards them trying to blow up the car. How did they come up with this story? The media asked the Israeli officials what happened. I believe that even the worst murderer will not admit his/her crime.<br> - <br> - To stop the violence, Israel has to take out all of the settlements, give back the Palestinians their land and allow them to have control over that land. Then a peace process could possibly start. I believe that even the most radicals of the Palestinians and the Israelis will give in at that point and support the peace process. It is simple, i can never see peace when one side conrtols the life of the other side. I cant see peace happen beofore justice is given to both sides.<br> - --["Users/Palestina"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 13:12:22'' [[nbsp]] Ok, here's exactly where the problem is. You've just said, "to stop the violence, [X] must happen", and to even consider a resolution, all demands must be met. I'm sorry, but you just lost me there. You can't have a negotiation where you are unwilling to compromise or accept that you might not get everything you want. That's how negotiations work. Neither party gets exactly what they want. And you have to show a good faith effort to do something in return. But you've just said that you want violence to continue until you get everything you want. So even if Israel gave you *some* of what you want and asked nothing in return, you'd still be supporting violence against it! Doesn't sound to me like there is any willingness to negotiate there.<br> - <br> - Why is there a wall? Because people kept coming into Israel and blowing themselves up in the middle of cities. Oddly enough, that wasn't a popular move, so they built a wall to keep the bombers out. Since the wall was built, there haven't been any bombings.<br> - <br> - Why are there checkpoints? Because there are attacks. It's the same reason that we have increasingly invasive searches at airports. Because a few people have decided to use violence to make people afraid, and now everyone has to be inconvenienced to make sure that no one gets a weapon onto an aircraft.<br> - <br> - Why is it hard to get things in and out of the Palestinian territories? Because the Israelis have to search everything to make prevent weapons or weapon components from getting in, because Hamas and company will use them to attack Israel again. Don't like it? Then you probably have to convince the Israelis that they won't be attacked.<br> - <br> - And seriously, saying that violence will continue until you get what you want is NOT a good negotiating tactic, nor does it in any way get my sympathy. If you threaten to kill or hurt random people unless they do what you want, you immediately close off all desire to negotiate on the part of the other party. You've complained that they put up a wall, but then you say that the violence that motivated the wall must continue. So you've just established that they need to keep the wall there, because if they take it down, more people will blow themselves up in Israeli cities again.<br> - <br> - I'm pretty sure claiming a "right of return" is equivalent to claiming that you have a right to live somewhere because your ancestors did. There's no such thing. If there were, anyone who has at any time been displaced from somewhere (or had their ancestors displaced from somewhere) would be able to claim ownership or entry into just about any place they wanted. Do you see that happening ANYWHERE in the world? I sure don't. But anyway, that's not the point. Back to the stuff about the violence...<br> - <br> - Again, let me ask you. Has it worked for you before? Has 60 years of violence gotten you (again, the general you) what you want? Pretty clearly, not. If it had, you wouldn't be here protesting, right? If you keep doing something one way, and it doesn't work, why do you keep doing it that way? What has the violence gotten for the Palestinians? It's gotten them an Israeli public that keeps electing hard line politicians because they want to feel safe from suicide bombers and people with rockets. When a hard line politician gets into office, do you think they are more likely to negotiate, or more likely to use force? My guess is that they will prefer force, because that's what hard liners tend to do. If people attempt to perform suicide bombings, do you really think the Israelis are going to just ignore it? No, they're going to do something to prevent the suicide bombers from coming in. Same with any other form of attack. And if the Israelis figure out where an attack is coming from, do you really think they are going to just sit there and let them continue? I'm pretty sure that they're going to do everything they can to stop the attack. Wouldn't you?<br> - <br> - Now imagine what would happen if one of these politicians DID give in following a wave of bombings. What do you think would happen? First, they would be thrown out of office. Second, Hamas would decide that violence DOES work, and would do more of it. So no politician in their right mind would give in to that sort of tactic.<br> - <br> - So again, the strategy of violence DOES NOT WORK. It has not worked. 60 years of history shows that it does not work. And it has bad consequences for the Palestinians. It forces Israel to do things to protect themselves, some of which make the Palestinian's situation worse. It makes it much harder to negotiate. It hurts the Palestinians in world opinion. What it does NOT do is get the Palestinians what they want.<br> - <br> - I do not understand the unwillingness to try a new strategy. I do not understand the unwillingness to try peace for 5 or 10 years and see what happens. Don't use the word impossible. Anything is possible if you really want it. Peace is possible. Right now. If you want it. A better life for the Palestinians is possible. Right now. If you want it. --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - * I basically agree with everything you're saying with one caveat: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement Settlement] needs to stop. Settlement is IMO an agressive act and goes a long way to make Palestinians feel that much like the way some Palestinians feel that the only acceptable solution is the removal of all Jewish people, the Israeli nation intends to ultimately drive all Palestinians out of the area.<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 13:56:16'' [[nbsp]] Please read what i said carefully. I said if israel continues to harass palestinians on daily basis, palestinians will for sure continue to attack israeli targets. why? because it is simply the right of each nation to resist their opressor. i did not say we will continue with violence untill we get what we want. i am not talking about the right to return. i am only saying If israel continues to spread tanks in the palestinian cities and bring in more settlers, take more land, and what not, then do not expect the palestinians to give up.<br> - I also said that the wall is illegal because it is built on palestinian property. I did not say it is useless. I said it is not where it is supposed to be.<br> - You ask too much of the palestinians while you never mention the removal of settlements from palestinian territories. How do you expect palestinians to react when the sewage from the settlements runs down into our towns. Believe me, you wouldnt want your neighbor's waste in your own back yard.<br> - I did not mention anywhere in my writing that i support violence. I only meant that if one side uses violence the other side will respnd with violence becuase thats how it is. You justify every israeli violent act and you blame the palestinians even though in reality the israel are the one who occupies, kills, shoots, harrases, and what not on daily basis.<br> - You keep telling me the ancestors story. Ok why dont you say that to the jews. they are the one who say God gave them that land. they are the one who use the ancestor story from 2000 years ago to take land. Just being jewish gives you the permission to live in israel where palestinians can not live.<br> - Everything you say is directed to one side of the conflict. Why dont you question the other side? why dont you ask israel to make sacrifices (in my previous post, i ve shown what the palestinians sacraficed)? Why dont you ask them to stop using God to acquire more land? They are the fifth strongest nation in the world and i believe they can help the palestinians to overcome the conflict. But no. Israelis want the whole Judea becuase "God promised them the land".<br> - I ve told you everything i have. Now, it is your responsibility to open your eyes and ears and to look at both sides equally and to listen to both sides equally. Watch "Occupation 101" watch "The Iron Wall" then come back and respond to me. --["Users/Palestina"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 15:34:42'' [[nbsp]] Actually, you did advocate violence, or at least it certainly came across that way. (Anyone read it differently?) You said "To stop the violence, Israel has to take out all of the settlements, give back the Palestinians their land and allow them to have control over that land. Then a peace process could possibly start." You've just said that the only wait to stop the violence is to do everything that you've asked for. Seems to me that that is advocating violence. Why not say "I'll advocate a cessation of all violence, and then we can come to an understanding and a mutually beneficial solution where everybody wins"?<br> - <br> - You said "In reality, during the peace talks, the Palestinians offered to give up the right of return for the refugees and agreed to only take 95% of the land that belongs to them under the international law. So now tell me, who is making sacrifices?" That seems to be to be claiming a right of return! If you do not claim there is a right of return, then what value is there in offering to give it up in a negotiation?! That's offering nothing. Otherwise, you must be claiming the existence of one. How else could you give it up?<br> - <br> - I did, in fact, say "I'd agree that Israel shouldn't be building more settlements in the disputed areas." And I'll go further and agree with you that it shouldn't knock down existing Palestinian settlements in Palestinian areas either. Neither side should be building stuff in each other's territories. Great. That was easy. :-) Now what about disputed territories? That leaves a little problem, since the Palestinians claim rather large chunks of Israeli land, and Israeli's claim rather large chunks of what the Palestinians consider their land. Seems like a reasonable solution is to say that if you control it, you can build on it, with the recognition that you may later lose control over it, and have to compensate the people who live there to relocate if necessary. Or, individual who wants to move there should be warned that if they move there, they may lose their house to border negotiations.<br> - <br> - As I've said before, I don't think ancestry gives you claim over land. I also don't think that religious claims do. (In fact, you've got 3 major religions all claiming the rights to the same tiny piece of land. What makes one more worthy than the other?) However, possession certainly seems to. National borders change over time for all sorts of reasons. When they do, you can chose to accept it and move on, or you can kill each other over it. The first solution seems like a MUCH better choice to me.<br> - <br> - If Israeli settlements are dumping sewage into Palestinian settlements, then yeah, of course they should stop that. Might be a good thing to work on together peacefully, no? It's not like that sort of thing never happens within the US, and it also gets resolved, peacefully, within the US all the time. Why not set up some sort of joint environmental monitoring commission, with an equal number of Palestinians and Israelis on it, and perhaps an equal number of people from other countries as well. Take samples. Get them tested. If they contain sewage, then whoever is responsible for creating the problem gets to fund cleaning it up and has to compensate the other for any damages, and they also have to take whatever steps are needed to prevent it from continuing to happen. I'll bet you could even find some labs that would donate their services. Easy. Fair. No killing or violence required on either side. Next problem? :)<br> - <br> - It seems to me that Israel is being asked to give up both land and some of its security. So yeah, both sides have to give something up. The Palestinians don't get all the land they want. The Israelis don't keep all the land they have. A solution gets designed that prevents the Israelis from getting bombed or getting missiles shot at them. But you've got to be realistic about things. We're talking about a tiny country surrounded by hostile neighbors, and a tiny territory. They're not likely to give you large chunks of their cities or huge chunks of land. But looking at the region on a map (what a mess!), I can see several things that might help:<br> - 1) Trade Gaza for an area of contiguous land along the Jordan River. Being split into lots of little chunks isn't a good solution. This also helps protect both sides, since travel through one country to get to the other isn't required. You get additional fresh water access. They get additional sea access.<br> - 2) Lots of land swapping within the West Bank so that each side gets a contiguous area. If an area can't be made contiguous, then it gets swapped for another area that is. Result is a Palestinian state not divided by Israel, and Israel not divided by a Palestinian state. If land is near a major strategic resource, such as water, it can be traded for a larger amount of land that is not near a major resource. A ratio of strategic to non-strategic land is picked beforehand, perhaps randomly by computer, within some reasonable range. Each side agrees to fund the relocation of their own people, and to allow the other side to do so without interference.<br> - 3) Both sides agree not to attack each other.<br> - 4) Both sides agree that the deal goes forward EVEN if one side DOES attack the other. Why? Because this prevents a group like Hamas from sabotaging the deal by lobbing rockets into Israel. (It also prevents Israel from doing the same thing.)<br> - <br> - If you want to skip the part where you argue over the value of every little piece of land, get a third party to write a program to randomly assign the land according to those rules. A third party writes the program, and everyone can see the code. Both sides agree to use what it generates. (This is a totally fair method since it is random.)<br> - <br> - Everybody loses something. Everybody gains something. A contiguous Palestinian state is created. You learn to get along.<br> - <br> - Perhaps Jordan could even be generous and throw in some land along the Jordan too? Just a thought.<br> - <br> - See? Not hard. You just have to want to solve it. No violence required.<br> - --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 16:43:08'' [[nbsp]] Yes I said to stop violence, x must happen. It is a very general statement. To stop a reaction you must stop adding reactants. You see where I am going with this.<br> - I do claim there is a right to return. But the Palestinians wanted to help the peace process. The Palestinians did give up the right of return even though it is their right under international law, so that the peace talks would continue. The PLO did so in order to help the peace process. Israel said no. At the current time, they have to deal with Hamas who wouldn’t let that right go away. So if Israel had accepted the deal by earlier Palestinians in the 1990s, we would have been in a better condition. Now that Israel rejected that offer, the offer is no longer valid and many Palestinians are not willing to give up the right of return.<br> - “since the Palestinians claim rather large chunks of Israeli land, and Israeli's claim rather large chunks of what the Palestinians consider their land. Seems like a reasonable solution is to say that if you control it, you can build on it, with the recognition that you may later lose control over it, and have to compensate the people who live there to relocate if necessary”<br> - To make it clear for you, Israel controls about 42% of the west bank. The west bank is empty of Hamas. Rockets have always been fired from Gaza, so what is your excuse now? Should the wall be there? Should the wall be on Palestinian territories? Should the Palestinians have to lose parts of the west bank in order for the Israelis to be happy?<br> - Everything you say here seems to be simple but in fact it is far more complicated. I don’t see sense when you say “National borders change over time for all sorts of reasons. When they do, you can chose to accept it and move on, or you can kill each other over it. The first solution seems like a MUCH better choice to me.” So basically, you tell me to let them take land as they want. There is no way to stop it, so just accept it. OK, would you like your neighbor to push the fence of your backyard one foot everyday taking away your property?<br> - Regarding the sewage problems, there are many Israeli – Palestinian organizations that work to solve the problem, but their power is very limited and they fear settlers so they cannot really do anything about it. They do not have to take samples, because the source of the sewage is rather observable. The waste runs downhill from the settlements to the Palestinian towns. (Most settlements are built on top of Palestinian hills.)<br> - Israel is not asked to give up land because the land that the Palestinians are asking for belongs to the Palestinians according to the international court. The Palestinians even sacrificed to only take 95% of that land. The west bank must have that land in order to be one connected territory. The settlements divide up the west bank into little pieces or as many human rights organizations referred to them as big prison cells.<br> - Israel is not asked to give up security either. They can build their security on their own land. I am fine with that. It is up to them whether build a wall or whatever the hell they want to. I believe they will be more secure if they take out the settlements because most of the trouble happens as a result of settlers’ actions. I will repeat that the west bank does not have Hamas so there are no rockets as an excuse. Yet, the settlers are constantly harassing their neighboring Palestinians. They are not part of the army but yet 80%+ of them are armed. They use acts of terror against Palestinians so they are “terrorists”. Simple equation: Take out settlers= less violence which could lead to peace.<br> - The land swapping cannot work. You have to visit the area first then you will realize that it is impossible. You can do that when you are playing video games but not in real life. Even if you could do that, I think both parties won’t be interested.<br> - I ask you again to watch the documentaries “Occupation 101” and “The Iron Wall”. You can find more than fighting in these documentaries. There are many more issues regarding the conflict. The conflict is not just the Hamas rockets, the Israeli missiles, the F16, or the merkava. The conflict deals with much more than guns. So please watch both documentaries.<br> - --["Users/Palestina"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 17:06:35'' [[nbsp]] So... what does this all have to do with the co-op's motion again? --["Users/JabberWokky"]<br> - <br> - * The proposed boycott is a protest of Israel's actions. The subsequent discussion is over the actual motivations for the boycott, whether or not such a boycott would have any effect on the world, and on the matter that the boycott is ultimately protesting, and on possible solutions to those matters. And yeah, it's been drifting rather far from Wiki matters...<br> - * Then how about link to resources that both sides feel represent the position best, or at the most have a few paragraphs that state positions? It might actually get them read rather than ignored as ballast that is overwhelming the co-op issue. -jw<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 17:15:43'' [[nbsp]] There are many excellent forums where you can debate Israel vs. Palestine: http://www.israelpalestineforum.com/ is one example.<br> - --["Users/DonShor"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 17:29:37'' [[nbsp]] Ok, please tell me why the land swapping idea would not work?<br> - <br> - Yes, I realize that Hamas is in Gaza. The walls are not there to keep rockets out. They're for the suicide bombers.<br> - <br> - The argument that some land is Palestinian because an international court ruled it so depends on several things. I'm not aware of which are true and which are not. Perhaps you can point us to the actual court ruling?<br> - <br> - 1) The court has to be a forum that both parties agreed to, and that both parties consider binding. If Israel didn't consider it binding, the fact that someone in that court ruled in a certain way doesn't make it so.<br> - 2) The court has to have the ability to enforce its ruling. For example, in a US court, you can sue someone and win a judgment that awards you money. But collecting is another issue. The person might not have money. In the case of ruling against a country, it's rather hard to make a country do something it doesn't want to, except by diplomatic or economic pressure, or through use of force. What power of enforcement does (did?) such court have?<br> - <br> - Apparently, whatever the court ruled, Israel didn't agree to it. That means that you are negotiating with something that you don't have. Unfortunately, you can't negotiate from the position you feel entitled to have. You have to negotiate from the position that you actually have.<br> - <br> - The first solution I proposed addressed the sewage issue. The second addresses the lack of territorial continuity. In fact, it guarantees territorial continuity for both sides. If you don't believe me, get a bag and two marbles of any two colors you like, say red and blue. Pour them onto the floor (put something in the way so they don't roll around your room.) Pick any blue and red marbles as your starting point (one of each). Now take any red marble that does not border at least one other red marble for which there is a path leading back to your first marble without any blue marbles in the way, and swap it with a blue marble that does not border another blue marble for which thee is a path back to the first blue one. If there is no marble left to swap for, then swap with one that is already connected, but that is on the edge of the blue or red "territories". I guarantee you'll wind up with two contiguous territories every time.<br> - <br> - I already agreed that the settling should stop. I agree that no one on either side should be harassing anyone else. I'm not the least bit surprised that the settlers (who shouldn't be there) are armed, as they are settling in an area where they are surrounded by people who are advocating violence against them. (The same goes for Israel in general. 1 day after the country was formed, 5 or 6 of the surrounding countries attacked it. They tried again several more times over the years. Iran keeps threatening to wipe Israel out, and appears to be developing nukes for that purpose. I'm opposed to weapons and violence in general, but honestly I can't blame them for being armed to the teeth when they are surrounded by countries that want to wipe them out.) But I do agree that the settlers should be removed.<br> - <br> - So again, the solution I proposed:<br> - -Removes the settlers.<br> - -Removes the pollution problem.<br> - -Provides both sides with a contiguous territory<br> - -Provides roughly equal value to both sides in rearranging the map<br> - -Does so in a fair way, without either side being able to argue that they "must have a certain piece of land because it has some religious or political significance". You get what you get.<br> - -Doesn't give either side 100% of the territory they want<br> - -Gives the Palestinians greater access the Jordan river<br> - -Is probably a better deal for the Palestinians than you'd ever get in direct negotiation with Israel<br> - -Is completely peaceful<br> - -Is easy to enforce<br> - -Allows both sides to stop fighting<br> - <br> - Is it the exact territory you want? No. Is it the exact territory Israel wants? No. Both sides have to give up something. But it solves the problem, and I seriously doubt that you'll do better with any other strategy. The strategy of violence has not worked. So why not try my proposal? --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - * The reason that the land swapping idea won't work is simple: the Co-op already has a lease on the land it uses, and if it were to move to the middle east, it is unlikely that the majority of shareholders would be able to make it there to shop. For that matter, how popular are co-op run businesses in that region of the world? -jw<br> - * Jabberwocky: :-)<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 19:35:40'' [[nbsp]]<br> - <br> - The International court is " is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly."<br> - <br> - so here every country that is part of the United Nations is responsible to follow these orders. But since Israel has The U.S to protect it, the international court is not able to enforce much.<br> - Agian i have to say if the wall is going to prevent suicide bombers from doing it then i will give them full support to build that wall INSIDE THE ISRAELI TERRITORIES.<br> - <br> - Regarding suicide bombing which only started less than 10 years ago, I want to go over the causes and the effects of such acts.<br> - Why do you think one would want to die? Palestinians are normal people and they would like to live like other humans, BUT Israel forces them to do such acts. How? Most of the suicide bombers have had very bad experience with the state of Israel. When I say very bad experience, I mean more than what most Palestinians have. Some of the causes may include; a death or an injury of a family member, a house demolition experience, imprisonment of a family member or self, and many other factors. All of these factors lead to a loss in hope in life, which leads to ideas of suicide and revenge. I don’t want to get into who started the fighting because really the fighting did not start when Israel was created in 1948 but it started when the Hagana gangs clashed with the Arabs back in the 1920s. The second Intifada started with the death of 24 (I am not 100% sure of the number but I know it is around 24-27) Palestinians in Jerusalem. They were massacred Ariel Sharon and company at al Aqsa Mosque. 24 deaths led to more rock throwing for almost a full year. Palestinians did not turn to guns until they realized that the world was going to stay silent. By the way, Palestinians in the West Bank bought their guns from Israeli soldiers and mafias.<br> - <br> - Now let me go back to the land swapping idea. Yes, it is the significance of places that will be the problem. The Christians would not want to leave Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the Muslims would not want to leave Jerusalem, and the Jews would not want to leave Jerusalem. I can’t help but tell you that people over there think differently than you. If the significance of the place was not very important, the Christians would have left to live in the west, the Jews would have never came there at the first place, and the Muslims might have given up and left to live in other Muslim countries.<br> - The only solution that I could think of is a one state solution. It is possible. Arabs and Jews have lived together for so long and I believe they can do it. They were doing it in the 1990s, I remember my family visiting Jewish families over from Tel Aviv for dinner. In fact many Israelis are not Zionists. But the fact that a big portion of them are, makes the situation very hard. Zionists want the historic Judea EMPTY from Palestinians and Arabs.<br> - <br> - I would like you to watch this video, it is a Jewish man from Jerusalem that once upon a time lived with the Arabs as he describes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2mTgq-jw8M<br> - <br> - Also watch this rabbi talk about Israel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_57nXOV67UM&amp;feature=related<br> - <br> - These videos are just a proof that Jews and Arabs can get along. Many Palestinians and Israelis share those same feelings.<br> - <br> - I am sorry, but a two state solution is impossible, and I know Israel would not want a one state solution. If Israelis and Palestinians put their hands together, I know they can do it. Both sides have to open a new page CLEAN OF VIOLENCE. Equal representation for all sects must be achieved as well. So for instance, the Jews will get this many seats, the Muslims would get this many, and the Christians would get this many. I think this a better solution for 2 reasons: Zionists will continue to want the land given to the palestinians so they would invade and occupy and we are back to where we started. the Palestinians will want their land as well and we are back to where we started.<br> - --["Users/Palestina"]<br> - <br> - * Regarding amount of representation each group gets: The [wiki:WikiPedia:United_States USA] solved the issue of appropriate representation between different groups (states) by creating both a [wiki:WikiPedia:United_States_Senate Senate], which gives equal representation for each of its states, and a [wiki:WikiPedia:United_States_House_of_Representatives House of Representatives], which gives representation proportional to each state's population. This could work in your proposal, but my concern with division by ethnicity would be the continued sense of difference between all of the people involved. We need to construct a system where both groups can be united by a common nationality, the same way both myself and our [wiki:WikiPedia:Barack_Obama President] would both regard each other as Americans, despite our differing ancestries. Currently, a majority of the members of our [wiki:WikiPedia:Congress Congress] happen to be ["European-Americans" White], but I do not consider that as being a reason for why my political interests might not be met. Following the American example, the differences from the past do not tamper with the prospects for a peaceful future. Afterwords, your new nation state of what is currently [wiki:WikiPedia:Palestine] can assign representation based on division of ideas rather than ethnicity or religion. - ["Paul Amnuaypayoat"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 20:47:13'' [[nbsp]] Palestina, for your information the second intifada was started not by Sharon's visit to the Holy Mount but was planned and executed in response to Israel giving everything the Palestinians would have wanted at the Camp David meeting by Yaser Arafat because had he accepted the Israeli proposition and gotten everything the Palestinians wanted, including their capital at Jerusalem, then he would lose support from the rest of the radicals. Why is it you think Arafat declined that proposition? In turn he decided to create the second intifada and gain further support from the nations all over the world because he knew from countless past terrorist experience that if he can get Israel to over-react and make it look like they were killing innocent civilians then the rest of the world would judge Israel harshly. Why is that you might ask? It's because the Jews have always been held up to a double standard, including the only nation that was forced to give back territory won in a DEFENSIVE war. And yet they gave the Palestinians EVERYTHING they would have wanted at Camp David. So please explain that to me.<br> - <br> - Do NOT tell me 0 houses were demolished in Israeli territory because you have terrorist actions that occurred in discotheques, buses, cafes killing innocent Israeli children, women, and pregnant women. That doesn't include the shelling of Israeli housing complexes during the day. And that is the reason there is "harassment" at the borders because wouldn't you agree that it's better to be safe and sorry? Do even know how many attempted suicides and terrorist plots those border stations have stopped? Thousands of terrorists have been arrested at those check points. Now the system isn't perfect and yes some innocent people get arrested but as usual people pay attention the minute details of the a couple failures of the check points (i.e. innocents getting arrested) rather than the bigger point and the bigger success of stopping terrorist plots.<br> - <br> - You're telling me it's OK to help Nazis exterminate Jews, let's not forget that Europe alone lost 5 million Jews during the Holocaust, because they were scared of them? What happened to reasoning and talking and coming up with a peaceful solution? But that's not what happened and that's not what continues to happen. Palestinians have given up NUMEROUS peace negotiations because it would have meant that they would have had to live next to Jews. And you wonder why the land was given to the Jews after WW2? Not only that but the land that WAS given to them was in areas where Jewish majority or plurality existed. You don't see Jews being scared of Palestinians or Iranians or Syrians and coming over the border and trying wipe out the entire populations. Violently targeting a certain group of people because you are scared of them IS not and should NEVER be a solution! And that's why it is anti-Semetic, because history has repeated itself in targeting JEWS, not Arabs, with violence.<br> - <br> - If shit keeps going downhill and not working on your behalf, you eventually have to stop blaming others and figure our what the hell you are doing wrong instead of blaming others. So instead of blaming Israel for putting up fences and check points and concrete barriers, don't automatically blame them for making that choice, rather step back and question the propaganda and the hatred that you are being fed. What is the purpose of the check points? To prevent terrorist plots. What is the point of the iron barrier in Gaza? To prevent extremists from getting weapons through tunnels running into Egypt. Why do you think even Egypt supports the wall? Because they're tired of dealing with extremists supplying each other. Why do you think houses are target for destruction? Because they harbor terrorists (and of course Palestinians are going to claim they were innocent because that gives them credibility). The Israeli government isn't doing these things for shits and giggles or to piss off the Palestinians. They are doing it to protect their own civilians. And unlike the Palestinians, they are tired of all this violence and on multiple occasions have proposed peace talks, giving Palestinians their own state, reparations, Jerusalem, and yet I still have not seen one accepted peace agreement. And in terms of the continuing housing developments, I also disagree with that. I do not think Israel should be building more houses because it ruins their credibility and it's degrading the peace process. So don't think I'm not critical of Israel or I think they're perfect.<br> - <br> - You think a two-state solution is impossible because you are looking at extremists and not at the majority of people from both the Palestinian and Israeli who want peace and who are tired of the violence. A two-state solution can and will be made once the Palestinians accept that they will have to live with Jews and Israelis. Israelis will give them autonomy, as in Gaza, when the violence and smuggling stops and when Israel feels safe. In the meantime, there is no reason to let their guard down because that will be a sign to Palestinians and Arabs in general that they are weak, and will therefore be attacked. History has proven before that naive Jews are dead Jews, especially in the Holocaust.<br> - <br> - So stop being ignorant and stop being brainwashed by propaganda and start questioning what the Palestinians are doing wrong because I have shown you that I am critical of some of Israel's policies. Only when both sides see the wrongs that they have committed and agree upon those wrongs will there be a peace.<br> - <br> - By the way here's a link to part of the introduction to "The Case for Israel" http://www.amazon.com/Case-Israel-Alan-Dershowitz/dp/0471679526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1265431537&amp;sr=8-1#reader_0471679526.<br> - <br> - Don't pay attention to Ultra-orthodox rabbis because they are not the majority. Just as you shouldn't be getting information from extremist Palestinians.<br> - --["Users/DP2010"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 21:21:04'' [[nbsp]] This is one point on the matter that I find very...revealing.<br> - <br> - Sesame Street recently filmed in Israel and did a peace episode talking to Israeli Jews and Palestinians.<br> - <br> - Meanwhile in Palestine (and other certain nations) children's shows depict Jews as evil, out to get them and encourage children to aspire to be suicide bombers.<br> - <br> - That's all I'm going to say on the matter. I'm not interested in debating extremists from either side since they won't listen to me anyway. --["Users/OliviaY"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 23:18:40'' [[nbsp]] Hence the brainwashing and propaganda... --["Users/DP2010"]<br> - * You mean the big tomato sculpture at the entrance? -jw<br> - * But the tomatoes are the source of the power of all sauce. Well, all red sauces anyway. Not the white ones. But we'll just keep those quiet for now and add them to our pasta when no one is looking, OK?<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-05 23:26:11'' [[nbsp]] The International Court at the UN does not actually have the ability to make binding rulings against any state. It acts as an advisory body. States may comply with its rulings if they wish, or they may not. They can not be compelled to do so. The UN does not make law for individual countries.<br> - <br> - A one state solution would, I imagine, not be an acceptable choice to the Israelis, particularly to Jewish Israelis. Israel is 75% Jewish. The majority of the remainder is Arab, with a few other groups mixed in. If Israel and the Palestinians unified, there would be a Jewish minority. Now let's see...you've got two populations. One keeps choosing governments which have the stated goal of destroying Israel, and which support continuous attacks on Israel, and which is full of people who feel wronged for generations by the Israelis to the point where they are willing to support suicide bombers. The other, with good reason, believes that all of the surrounding countries plus the Palestinian population would like their country destroyed, and would like them removed through any convenient means. That population also has direct and recent experience with being on the receiving end of genocide by majority populations that don't like them. We can look at Iraq, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other countries as examples of countries where arbitrary mixing of groups of people who don't like each other very much results in genocide when there isn't a strong power in place to stop it. My guess is it would play out in the following way:<br> - <br> - -Israel and Palestine unify.<br> - -A large number of the Palestinian diaspora move to Israel<br> - -An election is held.<br> - -The Palestinians take a majority.<br> - -Day one: laws are passed which convert Israel into a Palestinian state. Jews are most likely no longer permitted to hold office.<br> - -Day two: Jews are required to leave the country. Some do. Many want to stay. Violence breaks out<br> - -A few months later: Genocide in one form or another begins.<br> - <br> - If you don't believe me, look at what happened in Iraq after Saddam was forced from power. Or in any of those other countries I mentioned. I think you may though, since you said that you know that Israel will never accept a one state solution.<br> - <br> - Israel exists because the Jews there do not want to be the target of another genocide. I don't think that most Palestinians would support that kind of action. But it only takes a small number who come to power to do it, and so far, those are the people who the Palestinians choose as their leaders. So I can't possibly imagine that the Israelis would agree to a one state solution. Maybe if there had been 60 years of non-violent protest, they would agree to it.<br> - <br> - Again, no one is FORCED to be a suicide bomber. If you believe that someone has wronged you, is the appropriate thing to do to go and kill someone else who wasn't even involved? Nope. There is nothing that could ever justify that kind of behavior. It doesn't solve your problem, and it just hurts someone who did nothing to you.<br> - <br> - Yeah, anyone can be friends with anyone else. That's a really good place to start. In fact, working together and sharing things together is probably the best place to start.<br> - <br> - OK, so why not do the land swapping on all of the disputed land *excluding* the areas that are claimed by more than one major religion? For those areas, place the religious sites themselves under the control of a neutral third party. If you want to access one, you go through strict security checks, regardless of where you came from. That protects everyone. The plan still works. This wouldn't apply to the entire city, by the way. There are specific locations in those cities that are of religious significance. Those remain "neutral". You don't get to claim a whole modern city because it was significant in your religion hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's the same as the ancestry claim. But if you have a specific location, then *everyone* gets access to it so they can practice their religion. Again, not hard to do. It can be done peacefully. --["Users/IDoNotExist"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-06 01:02:20'' [[nbsp]] This discussion makes me want to see the movie Exodus again, would anyone else be interested in that? --["Users/NickSchmalenberger"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-06 01:50:00'' [[nbsp]] I just would like to be more realistic. A two state solution is imposible. If you think it is possible then good for you, but from my experience I can assure you that even if such solution happens it will be unfair to the palestinians. Go back to the partitioning of Palestine.<br> - <br> - the population by 1947 was 67% arabs(muslims + christians) vs. 33% European Jews. The majority of the land was owned by arabs. Yet the jews got 57% of the land and the arabs got 43% of it. not only they got more land, they also got the most fertile land.<br> - <br> - A one state solution is the only solution, it may take time but it is very possible. "Extremist palestinians" ( which i am not a part of, since i am a christian palestinian) have said many times that they have no problem with jews (as in people who follow the jewish books (this includes the christians)) but they are in a war against zionists, who want an EMPTY land for themselves and their ideoligies. I firmly believe, if israel gives up its zionist plans, the palestinians will be more willing to recognized jews as part of the region (as they did many years ago in all parts of the arabic world). You only have to give it 20-30 years without violence and you will see both sides asking for a one state solution. 20-30 years of rest where no hamas rockets, no israeli tanks on the streets, no settlers, no checkpoints exist. these years are only to allow both sides to forget.<br> - <br> - I do not have time to spend 3-4 hours each day on this ( i have midterms, essays and other school work that i have to finish by next week), so i will end this here. I will state my opinions and i will let you decide whether you want to accept my opinions or not.<br> - <br> - 1. Israel has the right to exist.<br> - 2. Palestine has the right to exist with full control over their land.<br> - 3. peaceful dismantling of settlements.<br> - 4. Signs of occupation must disappear. ( i believe the root cause for the hate by the palestinians are the many signs of occupation they have to encounter on daily basis).<br> - 5. a two state solution is not possible, therefore, a one state solution is the only solution i see for now.<br> - <br> - I will again ask you to look at the conflict from both sides and consider watching "Occupation 101", "The Iron Wall" and may be you would be interested by what The israeli information center for himan rights in the occupied territories (B'tselem) has to offer. http://www.btselem.org/English/<br> - <br> - <br> - I will say peace for now (salam/ Shalom) --["Users/Palestina"]<br> - <br> - For those who say " Don't pay attention to Ultra-orthodox rabbis because they are not the majority. Just as you shouldn't be getting information from extremist Palestinians." I would like to consider B'tselem. they are a human rights organization so i do not think you can accuse them of anything eh? http://www.btselem.org/English/<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-06 01:56:39'' [[nbsp]] Once again, I completely agree with IDoNotExist. Someone who actually thinks rationally. A neutral third party to control Jerusalem sounds like a great idea to me and most likely many other Jews who have been looking for some sort of peace agreement. Maybe the Swiss Guard who take care of security in Vatican City can do the same in Jerusalem. The only problem I see is the logistics of the implementation. --["Users/DP2010"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-02-06 02:10:50'' [[nbsp]] There are no signs of occupation because if you read what I wrote earlier, the European Jews who came to Palestine or whatever you want to call the region in 1880 before even the first Alliyah bought the land from absent landowners. The Arabs who owned the land sold it because it was infertile. They couldn't use it for anything. There the Jews legally owned the land. And THEY were the ones that made it fertile and started using it for ag, not the Palestinians. Israeli land, agriculturally is what it is today thanks to the Jews who worked their asses off making the land fertile and the individuals who sacrificed their lives clearing out malaria filled swamps. Not only that but like I said earlier as well, Jews received the land they did also because they were the majority in those regions (e.g. Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad). Is it not fair that the people who were the majority in the region and the people that legally owned the land and the people that enriched the land have the land be called their home?<br> - <br> - I think a two-state solution is best and can be achieved once Palestinians start thinking what they're doing wrong and why exactly Israel has such an aggressive stance on them, once Israel stops putting up settlements in areas that are supposed to be kept for Palestinians, once both sides realize and agree on their differences and on all the ways they've wronged each other, and once the Palestinian people stop supporting smuggling and extremists. In the past a two-state solution hasn't worked because Palestinian policy was to erase Israel off the map, then get back their homes, such as through Arafat and earlier Palestinian and Arab leaders. Now that is in the past. If both parties can sit down and diligently work out a peace plan then it will work. Israel has presented the two-state proposition in peace talks God know how many times now. --["Users/DP2010"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-18 10:50:23DougWalterQuickly putting 2/5/10 resolution of Board on page <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 41: </td> <td> Line 41: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- = General Manager's Statement =<br> - Here is a '''statement''' that '''Co-op General Manager Eric Stromberg''' has sent to concerned members who've contacted him:</span> </td> <td> <span>+ = Co-op Responses =<br> + Here is the resolution of the Food Co-op Board of Directors:<br> + [[File(Food Co-op Board Initiative Resolution Letter 2_2010.pdf)]]<br> + <br> + Here is an earlier '''statement''' that '''Co-op General Manager Eric Stromberg''' has sent to concerned members who've contacted him:</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-18 10:48:53DougWalterUpload of file <a href="http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions?action=Files&do=view&target=Food%20Co-op%20Board%20Initiative%20Resolution%20Letter%202_2010.pdf">Food Co-op Board Initiative Resolution Letter 2_2010.pdf</a>.Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-06 02:10:50DP2010Comment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 430: </td> <td> Line 430: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-06 02:10:50'' [[nbsp]] There are no signs of occupation because if you read what I wrote earlier, the European Jews who came to Palestine or whatever you want to call the region in 1880 before even the first Alliyah bought the land from absent landowners. The Arabs who owned the land sold it because it was infertile. They couldn't use it for anything. There the Jews legally owned the land. And THEY were the ones that made it fertile and started using it for ag, not the Palestinians. Israeli land, agriculturally is what it is today thanks to the Jews who worked their asses off making the land fertile and the individuals who sacrificed their lives clearing out malaria filled swamps. Not only that but like I said earlier as well, Jews received the land they did also because they were the majority in those regions (e.g. Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad). Is it not fair that the people who were the majority in the region and the people that legally owned the land and the people that enriched the land have the land be called their home?<br> + <br> + I think a two-state solution is best and can be achieved once Palestinians start thinking what they're doing wrong and why exactly Israel has such an aggressive stance on them, once Israel stops putting up settlements in areas that are supposed to be kept for Palestinians, once both sides realize and agree on their differences and on all the ways they've wronged each other, and once the Palestinian people stop supporting smuggling and extremists. In the past a two-state solution hasn't worked because Palestinian policy was to erase Israel off the map, then get back their homes, such as through Arafat and earlier Palestinian and Arab leaders. Now that is in the past. If both parties can sit down and diligently work out a peace plan then it will work. Israel has presented the two-state proposition in peace talks God know how many times now. --["Users/DP2010"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-06 01:56:39DP2010Comment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 428: </td> <td> Line 428: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-06 01:56:39'' [[nbsp]] Once again, I completely agree with IDoNotExist. Someone who actually thinks rationally. A neutral third party to control Jerusalem sounds like a great idea to me and most likely many other Jews who have been looking for some sort of peace agreement. Maybe the Swiss Guard who take care of security in Vatican City can do the same in Jerusalem. The only problem I see is the logistics of the implementation. --["Users/DP2010"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-06 01:55:06Palestina <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 424: </td> <td> Line 424: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 425: </td> <td> Line 426: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + For those who say " Don't pay attention to Ultra-orthodox rabbis because they are not the majority. Just as you shouldn't be getting information from extremist Palestinians." I would like to consider B'tselem. they are a human rights organization so i do not think you can accuse them of anything eh? http://www.btselem.org/English/</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-06 01:50:00PalestinaComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 407: </td> <td> Line 407: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-06 01:50:00'' [[nbsp]] I just would like to be more realistic. A two state solution is imposible. If you think it is possible then good for you, but from my experience I can assure you that even if such solution happens it will be unfair to the palestinians. Go back to the partitioning of Palestine.<br> + <br> + the population by 1947 was 67% arabs(muslims + christians) vs. 33% European Jews. The majority of the land was owned by arabs. Yet the jews got 57% of the land and the arabs got 43% of it. not only they got more land, they also got the most fertile land.<br> + <br> + A one state solution is the only solution, it may take time but it is very possible. "Extremist palestinians" ( which i am not a part of, since i am a christian palestinian) have said many times that they have no problem with jews (as in people who follow the jewish books (this includes the christians)) but they are in a war against zionists, who want an EMPTY land for themselves and their ideoligies. I firmly believe, if israel gives up its zionist plans, the palestinians will be more willing to recognized jews as part of the region (as they did many years ago in all parts of the arabic world). You only have to give it 20-30 years without violence and you will see both sides asking for a one state solution. 20-30 years of rest where no hamas rockets, no israeli tanks on the streets, no settlers, no checkpoints exist. these years are only to allow both sides to forget.<br> + <br> + I do not have time to spend 3-4 hours each day on this ( i have midterms, essays and other school work that i have to finish by next week), so i will end this here. I will state my opinions and i will let you decide whether you want to accept my opinions or not.<br> + <br> + 1. Israel has the right to exist.<br> + 2. Palestine has the right to exist with full control over their land.<br> + 3. peaceful dismantling of settlements.<br> + 4. Signs of occupation must disappear. ( i believe the root cause for the hate by the palestinians are the many signs of occupation they have to encounter on daily basis).<br> + 5. a two state solution is not possible, therefore, a one state solution is the only solution i see for now.<br> + <br> + I will again ask you to look at the conflict from both sides and consider watching "Occupation 101", "The Iron Wall" and may be you would be interested by what The israeli information center for himan rights in the occupied territories (B'tselem) has to offer. http://www.btselem.org/English/<br> + <br> + I will say peace for now (salam/ Shalom) --["Users/Palestina"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-06 01:02:20NickSchmalenbergerComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 405: </td> <td> Line 405: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-06 01:02:20'' [[nbsp]] This discussion makes me want to see the movie Exodus again, would anyone else be interested in that? --["Users/NickSchmalenberger"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 23:28:16IDoNotExist(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 382: </td> <td> Line 382: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * But the tomatoes are the source of the power of all sauce. Well, all red sauces anyway. Not the white ones. But we'll just keep those quiet for now and add them to our pasta when no one is looking, OK?</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 23:26:11IDoNotExistComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 382: </td> <td> Line 382: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 23:26:11'' [[nbsp]] The International Court at the UN does not actually have the ability to make binding rulings against any state. It acts as an advisory body. States may comply with its rulings if they wish, or they may not. They can not be compelled to do so. The UN does not make law for individual countries.<br> + <br> + A one state solution would, I imagine, not be an acceptable choice to the Israelis, particularly to Jewish Israelis. Israel is 75% Jewish. The majority of the remainder is Arab, with a few other groups mixed in. If Israel and the Palestinians unified, there would be a Jewish minority. Now let's see...you've got two populations. One keeps choosing governments which have the stated goal of destroying Israel, and which support continuous attacks on Israel, and which is full of people who feel wronged for generations by the Israelis to the point where they are willing to support suicide bombers. The other, with good reason, believes that all of the surrounding countries plus the Palestinian population would like their country destroyed, and would like them removed through any convenient means. That population also has direct and recent experience with being on the receiving end of genocide by majority populations that don't like them. We can look at Iraq, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other countries as examples of countries where arbitrary mixing of groups of people who don't like each other very much results in genocide when there isn't a strong power in place to stop it. My guess is it would play out in the following way:<br> + <br> + -Israel and Palestine unify.<br> + -A large number of the Palestinian diaspora move to Israel<br> + -An election is held.<br> + -The Palestinians take a majority.<br> + -Day one: laws are passed which convert Israel into a Palestinian state. Jews are most likely no longer permitted to hold office.<br> + -Day two: Jews are required to leave the country. Some do. Many want to stay. Violence breaks out<br> + -A few months later: Genocide in one form or another begins.<br> + <br> + If you don't believe me, look at what happened in Iraq after Saddam was forced from power. Or in any of those other countries I mentioned. I think you may though, since you said that you know that Israel will never accept a one state solution.<br> + <br> + Israel exists because the Jews there do not want to be the target of another genocide. I don't think that most Palestinians would support that kind of action. But it only takes a small number who come to power to do it, and so far, those are the people who the Palestinians choose as their leaders. So I can't possibly imagine that the Israelis would agree to a one state solution. Maybe if there had been 60 years of non-violent protest, they would agree to it.<br> + <br> + Again, no one is FORCED to be a suicide bomber. If you believe that someone has wronged you, is the appropriate thing to do to go and kill someone else who wasn't even involved? Nope. There is nothing that could ever justify that kind of behavior. It doesn't solve your problem, and it just hurts someone who did nothing to you.<br> + <br> + Yeah, anyone can be friends with anyone else. That's a really good place to start. In fact, working together and sharing things together is probably the best place to start.<br> + <br> + OK, so why not do the land swapping on all of the disputed land *excluding* the areas that are claimed by more than one major religion? For those areas, place the religious sites themselves under the control of a neutral third party. If you want to access one, you go through strict security checks, regardless of where you came from. That protects everyone. The plan still works. This wouldn't apply to the entire city, by the way. There are specific locations in those cities that are of religious significance. Those remain "neutral". You don't get to claim a whole modern city because it was significant in your religion hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's the same as the ancestry claim. But if you have a specific location, then *everyone* gets access to it so they can practice their religion. Again, not hard to do. It can be done peacefully. --["Users/IDoNotExist"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 23:19:37JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 381: </td> <td> Line 381: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * You mean the big tomato sculpture at the entrance? -jw</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 23:18:40DP2010Comment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 379: </td> <td> Line 379: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 23:18:40'' [[nbsp]] Hence the brainwashing and propaganda... --["Users/DP2010"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 21:21:04OliviaYComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 371: </td> <td> Line 371: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 21:21:04'' [[nbsp]] This is one point on the matter that I find very...revealing.<br> + <br> + Sesame Street recently filmed in Israel and did a peace episode talking to Israeli Jews and Palestinians.<br> + <br> + Meanwhile in Palestine (and other certain nations) children's shows depict Jews as evil, out to get them and encourage children to aspire to be suicide bombers.<br> + <br> + That's all I'm going to say on the matter. I'm not interested in debating extremists from either side since they won't listen to me anyway. --["Users/OliviaY"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 20:47:13DP2010Comment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 354: </td> <td> Line 354: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 20:47:13'' [[nbsp]] Palestina, for your information the second intifada was started not by Sharon's visit to the Holy Mount but was planned and executed in response to Israel giving everything the Palestinians would have wanted at the Camp David meeting by Yaser Arafat because had he accepted the Israeli proposition and gotten everything the Palestinians wanted, including their capital at Jerusalem, then he would lose support from the rest of the radicals. Why is it you think Arafat declined that proposition? In turn he decided to create the second intifada and gain further support from the nations all over the world because he knew from countless past terrorist experience that if he can get Israel to over-react and make it look like they were killing innocent civilians then the rest of the world would judge Israel harshly. Why is that you might ask? It's because the Jews have always been held up to a double standard, including the only nation that was forced to give back territory won in a DEFENSIVE war. And yet they gave the Palestinians EVERYTHING they would have wanted at Camp David. So please explain that to me.<br> + <br> + Do NOT tell me 0 houses were demolished in Israeli territory because you have terrorist actions that occurred in discotheques, buses, cafes killing innocent Israeli children, women, and pregnant women. That doesn't include the shelling of Israeli housing complexes during the day. And that is the reason there is "harassment" at the borders because wouldn't you agree that it's better to be safe and sorry? Do even know how many attempted suicides and terrorist plots those border stations have stopped? Thousands of terrorists have been arrested at those check points. Now the system isn't perfect and yes some innocent people get arrested but as usual people pay attention the minute details of the a couple failures of the check points (i.e. innocents getting arrested) rather than the bigger point and the bigger success of stopping terrorist plots.<br> + <br> + You're telling me it's OK to help Nazis exterminate Jews, let's not forget that Europe alone lost 5 million Jews during the Holocaust, because they were scared of them? What happened to reasoning and talking and coming up with a peaceful solution? But that's not what happened and that's not what continues to happen. Palestinians have given up NUMEROUS peace negotiations because it would have meant that they would have had to live next to Jews. And you wonder why the land was given to the Jews after WW2? Not only that but the land that WAS given to them was in areas where Jewish majority or plurality existed. You don't see Jews being scared of Palestinians or Iranians or Syrians and coming over the border and trying wipe out the entire populations. Violently targeting a certain group of people because you are scared of them IS not and should NEVER be a solution! And that's why it is anti-Semetic, because history has repeated itself in targeting JEWS, not Arabs, with violence.<br> + <br> + If shit keeps going downhill and not working on your behalf, you eventually have to stop blaming others and figure our what the hell you are doing wrong instead of blaming others. So instead of blaming Israel for putting up fences and check points and concrete barriers, don't automatically blame them for making that choice, rather step back and question the propaganda and the hatred that you are being fed. What is the purpose of the check points? To prevent terrorist plots. What is the point of the iron barrier in Gaza? To prevent extremists from getting weapons through tunnels running into Egypt. Why do you think even Egypt supports the wall? Because they're tired of dealing with extremists supplying each other. Why do you think houses are target for destruction? Because they harbor terrorists (and of course Palestinians are going to claim they were innocent because that gives them credibility). The Israeli government isn't doing these things for shits and giggles or to piss off the Palestinians. They are doing it to protect their own civilians. And unlike the Palestinians, they are tired of all this violence and on multiple occasions have proposed peace talks, giving Palestinians their own state, reparations, Jerusalem, and yet I still have not seen one accepted peace agreement. And in terms of the continuing housing developments, I also disagree with that. I do not think Israel should be building more houses because it ruins their credibility and it's degrading the peace process. So don't think I'm not critical of Israel or I think they're perfect.<br> + <br> + You think a two-state solution is impossible because you are looking at extremists and not at the majority of people from both the Palestinian and Israeli who want peace and who are tired of the violence. A two-state solution can and will be made once the Palestinians accept that they will have to live with Jews and Israelis. Israelis will give them autonomy, as in Gaza, when the violence and smuggling stops and when Israel feels safe. In the meantime, there is no reason to let their guard down because that will be a sign to Palestinians and Arabs in general that they are weak, and will therefore be attacked. History has proven before that naive Jews are dead Jews, especially in the Holocaust.<br> + <br> + So stop being ignorant and stop being brainwashed by propaganda and start questioning what the Palestinians are doing wrong because I have shown you that I am critical of some of Israel's policies. Only when both sides see the wrongs that they have committed and agree upon those wrongs will there be a peace.<br> + <br> + By the way here's a link to part of the introduction to "The Case for Israel" http://www.amazon.com/Case-Israel-Alan-Dershowitz/dp/0471679526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1265431537&amp;sr=8-1#reader_0471679526.<br> + <br> + Don't pay attention to Ultra-orthodox rabbis because they are not the majority. Just as you shouldn't be getting information from extremist Palestinians.<br> + --["Users/DP2010"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 20:21:55PaulAmnuaypayoatmy $0.02 regarding representation <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 352: </td> <td> Line 352: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * Regarding amount of representation each group gets: The [wiki:WikiPedia:United_States USA] solved the issue of appropriate representation between different groups (states) by creating both a [wiki:WikiPedia:United_States_Senate Senate], which gives equal representation for each of its states, and a [wiki:WikiPedia:United_States_House_of_Representatives House of Representatives], which gives representation proportional to each state's population. This could work in your proposal, but my concern with division by ethnicity would be the continued sense of difference between all of the people involved. We need to construct a system where both groups can be united by a common nationality, the same way both myself and our [wiki:WikiPedia:Barack_Obama President] would both regard each other as Americans, despite our differing ancestries. Currently, a majority of the members of our [wiki:WikiPedia:Congress Congress] happen to be ["European-Americans" White], but I do not consider that as being a reason for why my political interests might not be met. Following the American example, the differences from the past do not tamper with the prospects for a peaceful future. Afterwords, your new nation state of what is currently [wiki:WikiPedia:Palestine] can assign representation based on division of ideas rather than ethnicity or religion. - ["Paul Amnuaypayoat"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 19:37:02Palestina <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 350: </td> <td> Line 350: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I am sorry, but a two state solution is impossible, and I know Israel would not want a one state solution. If Israelis and Palestinians put their hands together, I know they can do it. Both sides have to open a new page CLEAN OF VIOLENCE. Equal representation for all sects must be achieved as well. So for instance, the Jews will get this many seats, the Muslims would get this many, and the Christians would get this many. <span>A</span> better solution for 2 reasons: Zionists will continue to want the land given to the palestinians so they would invade and occupy and we are back to where we started. the Palestinians will want their land as well and we are back to where we started. </td> <td> <span>+</span> I am sorry, but a two state solution is impossible, and I know Israel would not want a one state solution. If Israelis and Palestinians put their hands together, I know they can do it. Both sides have to open a new page CLEAN OF VIOLENCE. Equal representation for all sects must be achieved as well. So for instance, the Jews will get this many seats, the Muslims would get this many, and the Christians would get this many. <span>I think this a</span> better solution for 2 reasons: Zionists will continue to want the land given to the palestinians so they would invade and occupy and we are back to where we started. the Palestinians will want their land as well and we are back to where we started. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 19:35:40PalestinaComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 330: </td> <td> Line 330: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 19:35:40'' [[nbsp]]<br> + <br> + The International court is " is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly."<br> + <br> + so here every country that is part of the United Nations is responsible to follow these orders. But since Israel has The U.S to protect it, the international court is not able to enforce much.<br> + Agian i have to say if the wall is going to prevent suicide bombers from doing it then i will give them full support to build that wall INSIDE THE ISRAELI TERRITORIES.<br> + <br> + Regarding suicide bombing which only started less than 10 years ago, I want to go over the causes and the effects of such acts.<br> + Why do you think one would want to die? Palestinians are normal people and they would like to live like other humans, BUT Israel forces them to do such acts. How? Most of the suicide bombers have had very bad experience with the state of Israel. When I say very bad experience, I mean more than what most Palestinians have. Some of the causes may include; a death or an injury of a family member, a house demolition experience, imprisonment of a family member or self, and many other factors. All of these factors lead to a loss in hope in life, which leads to ideas of suicide and revenge. I don’t want to get into who started the fighting because really the fighting did not start when Israel was created in 1948 but it started when the Hagana gangs clashed with the Arabs back in the 1920s. The second Intifada started with the death of 24 (I am not 100% sure of the number but I know it is around 24-27) Palestinians in Jerusalem. They were massacred Ariel Sharon and company at al Aqsa Mosque. 24 deaths led to more rock throwing for almost a full year. Palestinians did not turn to guns until they realized that the world was going to stay silent. By the way, Palestinians in the West Bank bought their guns from Israeli soldiers and mafias.<br> + <br> + Now let me go back to the land swapping idea. Yes, it is the significance of places that will be the problem. The Christians would not want to leave Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the Muslims would not want to leave Jerusalem, and the Jews would not want to leave Jerusalem. I can’t help but tell you that people over there think differently than you. If the significance of the place was not very important, the Christians would have left to live in the west, the Jews would have never came there at the first place, and the Muslims might have given up and left to live in other Muslim countries.<br> + The only solution that I could think of is a one state solution. It is possible. Arabs and Jews have lived together for so long and I believe they can do it. They were doing it in the 1990s, I remember my family visiting Jewish families over from Tel Aviv for dinner. In fact many Israelis are not Zionists. But the fact that a big portion of them are, makes the situation very hard. Zionists want the historic Judea EMPTY from Palestinians and Arabs.<br> + <br> + I would like you to watch this video, it is a Jewish man from Jerusalem that once upon a time lived with the Arabs as he describes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2mTgq-jw8M<br> + <br> + Also watch this rabbi talk about Israel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_57nXOV67UM&amp;feature=related<br> + <br> + These videos are just a proof that Jews and Arabs can get along. Many Palestinians and Israelis share those same feelings.<br> + <br> + I am sorry, but a two state solution is impossible, and I know Israel would not want a one state solution. If Israelis and Palestinians put their hands together, I know they can do it. Both sides have to open a new page CLEAN OF VIOLENCE. Equal representation for all sects must be achieved as well. So for instance, the Jews will get this many seats, the Muslims would get this many, and the Christians would get this many. A better solution for 2 reasons: Zionists will continue to want the land given to the palestinians so they would invade and occupy and we are back to where we started. the Palestinians will want their land as well and we are back to where we started.<br> + --["Users/Palestina"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 17:47:10IDoNotExist(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 329: </td> <td> Line 329: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Jabberwocky: :-)</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 17:38:27JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 294: </td> <td> Line 294: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Then how about link to resources that both sides feel represent the position best, or at the most have a few paragraphs that state positions? It might actually get them read rather than ignored as ballast that is overwhelming the co-op issue. -jw</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 17:35:48JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 327: </td> <td> Line 327: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * The reason that the land swapping idea won't work is simple: the Co-op already has a lease on the land it uses, and if it were to move to the middle east, it is unlikely that the majority of shareholders would be able to make it there to shop. For that matter, how popular are co-op run businesses in that region of the world? -jw</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 17:35:17IDoNotExist(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 292: </td> <td> Line 292: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * The proposed boycott is a protest of Israel's actions. The subsequent discussion is over the actual motivations for the boycott, whether or not such a boycott would have any effect on the world, and on the matter that the boycott is ultimately protesting, and on possible solutions to those matters. And yeah, it's been drifting rather far from Wiki matters...</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 17:29:37IDoNotExistComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 295: </td> <td> Line 295: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 17:29:37'' [[nbsp]] Ok, please tell me why the land swapping idea would not work?<br> + <br> + Yes, I realize that Hamas is in Gaza. The walls are not there to keep rockets out. They're for the suicide bombers.<br> + <br> + The argument that some land is Palestinian because an international court ruled it so depends on several things. I'm not aware of which are true and which are not. Perhaps you can point us to the actual court ruling?<br> + <br> + 1) The court has to be a forum that both parties agreed to, and that both parties consider binding. If Israel didn't consider it binding, the fact that someone in that court ruled in a certain way doesn't make it so.<br> + 2) The court has to have the ability to enforce its ruling. For example, in a US court, you can sue someone and win a judgment that awards you money. But collecting is another issue. The person might not have money. In the case of ruling against a country, it's rather hard to make a country do something it doesn't want to, except by diplomatic or economic pressure, or through use of force. What power of enforcement does (did?) such court have?<br> + <br> + Apparently, whatever the court ruled, Israel didn't agree to it. That means that you are negotiating with something that you don't have. Unfortunately, you can't negotiate from the position you feel entitled to have. You have to negotiate from the position that you actually have.<br> + <br> + The first solution I proposed addressed the sewage issue. The second addresses the lack of territorial continuity. In fact, it guarantees territorial continuity for both sides. If you don't believe me, get a bag and two marbles of any two colors you like, say red and blue. Pour them onto the floor (put something in the way so they don't roll around your room.) Pick any blue and red marbles as your starting point (one of each). Now take any red marble that does not border at least one other red marble for which there is a path leading back to your first marble without any blue marbles in the way, and swap it with a blue marble that does not border another blue marble for which thee is a path back to the first blue one. If there is no marble left to swap for, then swap with one that is already connected, but that is on the edge of the blue or red "territories". I guarantee you'll wind up with two contiguous territories every time.<br> + <br> + I already agreed that the settling should stop. I agree that no one on either side should be harassing anyone else. I'm not the least bit surprised that the settlers (who shouldn't be there) are armed, as they are settling in an area where they are surrounded by people who are advocating violence against them. (The same goes for Israel in general. 1 day after the country was formed, 5 or 6 of the surrounding countries attacked it. They tried again several more times over the years. Iran keeps threatening to wipe Israel out, and appears to be developing nukes for that purpose. I'm opposed to weapons and violence in general, but honestly I can't blame them for being armed to the teeth when they are surrounded by countries that want to wipe them out.) But I do agree that the settlers should be removed.<br> + <br> + So again, the solution I proposed:<br> + -Removes the settlers.<br> + -Removes the pollution problem.<br> + -Provides both sides with a contiguous territory<br> + -Provides roughly equal value to both sides in rearranging the map<br> + -Does so in a fair way, without either side being able to argue that they "must have a certain piece of land because it has some religious or political significance". You get what you get.<br> + -Doesn't give either side 100% of the territory they want<br> + -Gives the Palestinians greater access the Jordan river<br> + -Is probably a better deal for the Palestinians than you'd ever get in direct negotiation with Israel<br> + -Is completely peaceful<br> + -Is easy to enforce<br> + -Allows both sides to stop fighting<br> + <br> + Is it the exact territory you want? No. Is it the exact territory Israel wants? No. Both sides have to give up something. But it solves the problem, and I seriously doubt that you'll do better with any other strategy. The strategy of violence has not worked. So why not try my proposal? --["Users/IDoNotExist"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 17:15:43DonShorComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 292: </td> <td> Line 292: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 17:15:43'' [[nbsp]] There are many excellent forums where you can debate Israel vs. Palestine: http://www.israelpalestineforum.com/ is one example.<br> + --["Users/DonShor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 17:06:35JabberWokkyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 290: </td> <td> Line 290: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 17:06:35'' [[nbsp]] So... what does this all have to do with the co-op's motion again? --["Users/JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 16:43:08PalestinaComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 278: </td> <td> Line 278: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 16:43:08'' [[nbsp]] Yes I said to stop violence, x must happen. It is a very general statement. To stop a reaction you must stop adding reactants. You see where I am going with this.<br> + I do claim there is a right to return. But the Palestinians wanted to help the peace process. The Palestinians did give up the right of return even though it is their right under international law, so that the peace talks would continue. The PLO did so in order to help the peace process. Israel said no. At the current time, they have to deal with Hamas who wouldn’t let that right go away. So if Israel had accepted the deal by earlier Palestinians in the 1990s, we would have been in a better condition. Now that Israel rejected that offer, the offer is no longer valid and many Palestinians are not willing to give up the right of return.<br> + “since the Palestinians claim rather large chunks of Israeli land, and Israeli's claim rather large chunks of what the Palestinians consider their land. Seems like a reasonable solution is to say that if you control it, you can build on it, with the recognition that you may later lose control over it, and have to compensate the people who live there to relocate if necessary”<br> + To make it clear for you, Israel controls about 42% of the west bank. The west bank is empty of Hamas. Rockets have always been fired from Gaza, so what is your excuse now? Should the wall be there? Should the wall be on Palestinian territories? Should the Palestinians have to lose parts of the west bank in order for the Israelis to be happy?<br> + Everything you say here seems to be simple but in fact it is far more complicated. I don’t see sense when you say “National borders change over time for all sorts of reasons. When they do, you can chose to accept it and move on, or you can kill each other over it. The first solution seems like a MUCH better choice to me.” So basically, you tell me to let them take land as they want. There is no way to stop it, so just accept it. OK, would you like your neighbor to push the fence of your backyard one foot everyday taking away your property?<br> + Regarding the sewage problems, there are many Israeli – Palestinian organizations that work to solve the problem, but their power is very limited and they fear settlers so they cannot really do anything about it. They do not have to take samples, because the source of the sewage is rather observable. The waste runs downhill from the settlements to the Palestinian towns. (Most settlements are built on top of Palestinian hills.)<br> + Israel is not asked to give up land because the land that the Palestinians are asking for belongs to the Palestinians according to the international court. The Palestinians even sacrificed to only take 95% of that land. The west bank must have that land in order to be one connected territory. The settlements divide up the west bank into little pieces or as many human rights organizations referred to them as big prison cells.<br> + Israel is not asked to give up security either. They can build their security on their own land. I am fine with that. It is up to them whether build a wall or whatever the hell they want to. I believe they will be more secure if they take out the settlements because most of the trouble happens as a result of settlers’ actions. I will repeat that the west bank does not have Hamas so there are no rockets as an excuse. Yet, the settlers are constantly harassing their neighboring Palestinians. They are not part of the army but yet 80%+ of them are armed. They use acts of terror against Palestinians so they are “terrorists”. Simple equation: Take out settlers= less violence which could lead to peace.<br> + The land swapping cannot work. You have to visit the area first then you will realize that it is impossible. You can do that when you are playing video games but not in real life. Even if you could do that, I think both parties won’t be interested.<br> + I ask you again to watch the documentaries “Occupation 101” and “The Iron Wall”. You can find more than fighting in these documentaries. There are many more issues regarding the conflict. The conflict is not just the Hamas rockets, the Israeli missiles, the F16, or the merkava. The conflict deals with much more than guns. So please watch both documentaries.<br> + --["Users/Palestina"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 15:34:42IDoNotExistComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 253: </td> <td> Line 253: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 15:34:42'' [[nbsp]] Actually, you did advocate violence, or at least it certainly came across that way. (Anyone read it differently?) You said "To stop the violence, Israel has to take out all of the settlements, give back the Palestinians their land and allow them to have control over that land. Then a peace process could possibly start." You've just said that the only wait to stop the violence is to do everything that you've asked for. Seems to me that that is advocating violence. Why not say "I'll advocate a cessation of all violence, and then we can come to an understanding and a mutually beneficial solution where everybody wins"?<br> + <br> + You said "In reality, during the peace talks, the Palestinians offered to give up the right of return for the refugees and agreed to only take 95% of the land that belongs to them under the international law. So now tell me, who is making sacrifices?" That seems to be to be claiming a right of return! If you do not claim there is a right of return, then what value is there in offering to give it up in a negotiation?! That's offering nothing. Otherwise, you must be claiming the existence of one. How else could you give it up?<br> + <br> + I did, in fact, say "I'd agree that Israel shouldn't be building more settlements in the disputed areas." And I'll go further and agree with you that it shouldn't knock down existing Palestinian settlements in Palestinian areas either. Neither side should be building stuff in each other's territories. Great. That was easy. :-) Now what about disputed territories? That leaves a little problem, since the Palestinians claim rather large chunks of Israeli land, and Israeli's claim rather large chunks of what the Palestinians consider their land. Seems like a reasonable solution is to say that if you control it, you can build on it, with the recognition that you may later lose control over it, and have to compensate the people who live there to relocate if necessary. Or, individual who wants to move there should be warned that if they move there, they may lose their house to border negotiations.<br> + <br> + As I've said before, I don't think ancestry gives you claim over land. I also don't think that religious claims do. (In fact, you've got 3 major religions all claiming the rights to the same tiny piece of land. What makes one more worthy than the other?) However, possession certainly seems to. National borders change over time for all sorts of reasons. When they do, you can chose to accept it and move on, or you can kill each other over it. The first solution seems like a MUCH better choice to me.<br> + <br> + If Israeli settlements are dumping sewage into Palestinian settlements, then yeah, of course they should stop that. Might be a good thing to work on together peacefully, no? It's not like that sort of thing never happens within the US, and it also gets resolved, peacefully, within the US all the time. Why not set up some sort of joint environmental monitoring commission, with an equal number of Palestinians and Israelis on it, and perhaps an equal number of people from other countries as well. Take samples. Get them tested. If they contain sewage, then whoever is responsible for creating the problem gets to fund cleaning it up and has to compensate the other for any damages, and they also have to take whatever steps are needed to prevent it from continuing to happen. I'll bet you could even find some labs that would donate their services. Easy. Fair. No killing or violence required on either side. Next problem? :)<br> + <br> + It seems to me that Israel is being asked to give up both land and some of its security. So yeah, both sides have to give something up. The Palestinians don't get all the land they want. The Israelis don't keep all the land they have. A solution gets designed that prevents the Israelis from getting bombed or getting missiles shot at them. But you've got to be realistic about things. We're talking about a tiny country surrounded by hostile neighbors, and a tiny territory. They're not likely to give you large chunks of their cities or huge chunks of land. But looking at the region on a map (what a mess!), I can see several things that might help:<br> + 1) Trade Gaza for an area of contiguous land along the Jordan River. Being split into lots of little chunks isn't a good solution. This also helps protect both sides, since travel through one country to get to the other isn't required. You get additional fresh water access. They get additional sea access.<br> + 2) Lots of land swapping within the West Bank so that each side gets a contiguous area. If an area can't be made contiguous, then it gets swapped for another area that is. Result is a Palestinian state not divided by Israel, and Israel not divided by a Palestinian state. If land is near a major strategic resource, such as water, it can be traded for a larger amount of land that is not near a major resource. A ratio of strategic to non-strategic land is picked beforehand, perhaps randomly by computer, within some reasonable range. Each side agrees to fund the relocation of their own people, and to allow the other side to do so without interference.<br> + 3) Both sides agree not to attack each other.<br> + 4) Both sides agree that the deal goes forward EVEN if one side DOES attack the other. Why? Because this prevents a group like Hamas from sabotaging the deal by lobbing rockets into Israel. (It also prevents Israel from doing the same thing.)<br> + <br> + If you want to skip the part where you argue over the value of every little piece of land, get a third party to write a program to randomly assign the land according to those rules. A third party writes the program, and everyone can see the code. Both sides agree to use what it generates. (This is a totally fair method since it is random.)<br> + <br> + Everybody loses something. Everybody gains something. A contiguous Palestinian state is created. You learn to get along.<br> + <br> + Perhaps Jordan could even be generous and throw in some land along the Jordan too? Just a thought.<br> + <br> + See? Not hard. You just have to want to solve it. No violence required.<br> + --["Users/IDoNotExist"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 15:14:30Palestina <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 248: </td> <td> Line 248: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> You ask too much of the palestinians while you never mention<span>ed</span> the removal of settlements from palestinian territories. How do you expect palestinians to react when the sewage from the settlements runs down into our towns. Believe me, you wouldnt want your neighbor's waste in your own back yard.<br> <span>-</span> I did not mention anywhere in my writing that i support violence. I only meant that if one side uses violence the other side will respnd with violence becuase thats how it is. You justify every israeli violent act and you blame the palestinians even though in reality the israel<span>i are the ones who occupy</span>, kill, shoot, harras, and what not on daily basis. </td> <td> <span>+</span> You ask too much of the palestinians while you never mention the removal of settlements from palestinian territories. How do you expect palestinians to react when the sewage from the settlements runs down into our towns. Believe me, you wouldnt want your neighbor's waste in your own back yard.<br> <span>+</span> I did not mention anywhere in my writing that i support violence. I only meant that if one side uses violence the other side will respnd with violence becuase thats how it is. You justify every israeli violent act and you blame the palestinians even though in reality the israel<span>&nbsp;are the one who occupies</span>, kill<span>s</span>, shoot<span>s</span>, harras<span>es</span>, and what not on daily basis. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 251: </td> <td> Line 251: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Everything you say is directed to one side of the conflict. Why dont you question the other side? why dont you ask israel to make sacrifices? Why dont ask them to stop using God to acquire more land? They are the fifth strongest nation in the world and i believe they can help the palestinians to overcome the conflict. But no. Israelis want the whole Judea becuase God promised them the land. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Everything you say is directed to one side of the conflict. Why dont you question the other side? why dont you ask israel to make sacrifices<span>&nbsp;(in my previous post, i ve shown what the palestinians sacraficed)</span>? Why dont <span>you </span>ask them to stop using God to acquire more land? They are the fifth strongest nation in the world and i believe they can help the palestinians to overcome the conflict. But no. Israelis want the whole Judea becuase <span>"</span>God promised them the land<span>"</span>. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 13:56:16PalestinaComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 245: </td> <td> Line 245: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 13:56:16'' [[nbsp]] Please read what i said carefully. I said if israel continues to harass palestinians on daily basis, palestinians will for sure continue to attack israeli targets. why? because it is simply the right of each nation to resist their opressor. i did not say we will continue with violence untill we get what we want. i am not talking about the right to return. i am only saying If israel continues to spread tanks in the palestinian cities and bring in more settlers, take more land, and what not, then do not expect the palestinians to give up.<br> + I also said that the wall is illegal because it is built on palestinian property. I did not say it is useless. I said it is not where it is supposed to be.<br> + You ask too much of the palestinians while you never mentioned the removal of settlements from palestinian territories. How do you expect palestinians to react when the sewage from the settlements runs down into our towns. Believe me, you wouldnt want your neighbor's waste in your own back yard.<br> + I did not mention anywhere in my writing that i support violence. I only meant that if one side uses violence the other side will respnd with violence becuase thats how it is. You justify every israeli violent act and you blame the palestinians even though in reality the israeli are the ones who occupy, kill, shoot, harras, and what not on daily basis.<br> + You keep telling me the ancestors story. Ok why dont you say that to the jews. they are the one who say God gave them that land. they are the one who use the ancestor story from 2000 years ago to take land. Just being jewish gives you the permission to live in israel where palestinians can not live.<br> + Everything you say is directed to one side of the conflict. Why dont you question the other side? why dont you ask israel to make sacrifices? Why dont ask them to stop using God to acquire more land? They are the fifth strongest nation in the world and i believe they can help the palestinians to overcome the conflict. But no. Israelis want the whole Judea becuase God promised them the land.<br> + I ve told you everything i have. Now, it is your responsibility to open your eyes and ears and to look at both sides equally and to listen to both sides equally. Watch "Occupation 101" watch "The Iron Wall" then come back and respond to me. --["Users/Palestina"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 13:30:29rfrazier <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 244: </td> <td> Line 244: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I basically agree with everything you're saying with one caveat: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement Settlement] needs to stop. Settlement is IMO an agressive act and goes a long way to make Palestinians feel that much like the way some Palestinians feel that the only acceptable solution is the removal of all Jewish people, the Israeli nation intends to ultimately drive all Palestinians out of the area.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 13:12:22IDoNotExistComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 224: </td> <td> Line 224: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 13:12:22'' [[nbsp]] Ok, here's exactly where the problem is. You've just said, "to stop the violence, [X] must happen", and to even consider a resolution, all demands must be met. I'm sorry, but you just lost me there. You can't have a negotiation where you are unwilling to compromise or accept that you might not get everything you want. That's how negotiations work. Neither party gets exactly what they want. And you have to show a good faith effort to do something in return. But you've just said that you want violence to continue until you get everything you want. So even if Israel gave you *some* of what you want and asked nothing in return, you'd still be supporting violence against it! Doesn't sound to me like there is any willingness to negotiate there.<br> + <br> + Why is there a wall? Because people kept coming into Israel and blowing themselves up in the middle of cities. Oddly enough, that wasn't a popular move, so they built a wall to keep the bombers out. Since the wall was built, there haven't been any bombings.<br> + <br> + Why are there checkpoints? Because there are attacks. It's the same reason that we have increasingly invasive searches at airports. Because a few people have decided to use violence to make people afraid, and now everyone has to be inconvenienced to make sure that no one gets a weapon onto an aircraft.<br> + <br> + Why is it hard to get things in and out of the Palestinian territories? Because the Israelis have to search everything to make prevent weapons or weapon components from getting in, because Hamas and company will use them to attack Israel again. Don't like it? Then you probably have to convince the Israelis that they won't be attacked.<br> + <br> + And seriously, saying that violence will continue until you get what you want is NOT a good negotiating tactic, nor does it in any way get my sympathy. If you threaten to kill or hurt random people unless they do what you want, you immediately close off all desire to negotiate on the part of the other party. You've complained that they put up a wall, but then you say that the violence that motivated the wall must continue. So you've just established that they need to keep the wall there, because if they take it down, more people will blow themselves up in Israeli cities again.<br> + <br> + I'm pretty sure claiming a "right of return" is equivalent to claiming that you have a right to live somewhere because your ancestors did. There's no such thing. If there were, anyone who has at any time been displaced from somewhere (or had their ancestors displaced from somewhere) would be able to claim ownership or entry into just about any place they wanted. Do you see that happening ANYWHERE in the world? I sure don't. But anyway, that's not the point. Back to the stuff about the violence...<br> + <br> + Again, let me ask you. Has it worked for you before? Has 60 years of violence gotten you (again, the general you) what you want? Pretty clearly, not. If it had, you wouldn't be here protesting, right? If you keep doing something one way, and it doesn't work, why do you keep doing it that way? What has the violence gotten for the Palestinians? It's gotten them an Israeli public that keeps electing hard line politicians because they want to feel safe from suicide bombers and people with rockets. When a hard line politician gets into office, do you think they are more likely to negotiate, or more likely to use force? My guess is that they will prefer force, because that's what hard liners tend to do. If people attempt to perform suicide bombings, do you really think the Israelis are going to just ignore it? No, they're going to do something to prevent the suicide bombers from coming in. Same with any other form of attack. And if the Israelis figure out where an attack is coming from, do you really think they are going to just sit there and let them continue? I'm pretty sure that they're going to do everything they can to stop the attack. Wouldn't you?<br> + <br> + Now imagine what would happen if one of these politicians DID give in following a wave of bombings. What do you think would happen? First, they would be thrown out of office. Second, Hamas would decide that violence DOES work, and would do more of it. So no politician in their right mind would give in to that sort of tactic.<br> + <br> + So again, the strategy of violence DOES NOT WORK. It has not worked. 60 years of history shows that it does not work. And it has bad consequences for the Palestinians. It forces Israel to do things to protect themselves, some of which make the Palestinian's situation worse. It makes it much harder to negotiate. It hurts the Palestinians in world opinion. What it does NOT do is get the Palestinians what they want.<br> + <br> + I do not understand the unwillingness to try a new strategy. I do not understand the unwillingness to try peace for 5 or 10 years and see what happens. Don't use the word impossible. Anything is possible if you really want it. Peace is possible. Right now. If you want it. A better life for the Palestinians is possible. Right now. If you want it. --["Users/IDoNotExist"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 12:06:57Palestina <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 222: </td> <td> Line 222: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> To stop the violence, Israel has to take out all of the settlements, give back the Palestinians their land and allow them to have control over that land. Then a peace process could possibly start. I believe that even the most radicals of the Palestinians and the Israelis will give in at that point and support the peace process. It is simple, i can never see peace when one side conrtols th<span>w</span> life of the other side. I cant see peace happen beofore justice is given to both sides. </td> <td> <span>+</span> To stop the violence, Israel has to take out all of the settlements, give back the Palestinians their land and allow them to have control over that land. Then a peace process could possibly start. I believe that even the most radicals of the Palestinians and the Israelis will give in at that point and support the peace process. It is simple, i can never see peace when one side conrtols th<span>e</span> life of the other side. I cant see peace happen beofore justice is given to both sides. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 12:06:31Palestina <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 198: </td> <td> Line 198: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 199: </td> <td> Line 200: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 200: </td> <td> Line 202: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 201: </td> <td> Line 204: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 202: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 207: </td> <td> Line 212: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 209: </td> <td> Line 215: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 210: </td> <td> Line 217: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 211: </td> <td> Line 219: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 212: </td> <td> Line 221: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> To stop violence, Israel has to take out all of the settlements, give back the Palestinians their land and allow them to have control over that land. Then a peace process could possibly start. I believe that even the most radicals of the Palestinians and the Israelis will give in at that point and support the peace process. </td> <td> <span>+ <br> +</span> To stop <span>the </span>violence, Israel has to take out all of the settlements, give back the Palestinians their land and allow them to have control over that land. Then a peace process could possibly start. I believe that even the most radicals of the Palestinians and the Israelis will give in at that point and support the peace process.<span>&nbsp;It is simple, i can never see peace when one side conrtols thw life of the other side. I cant see peace happen beofore justice is given to both sides.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 12:01:33Palestina <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 204: </td> <td> Line 204: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The vote was 14 to 1. No controversy. The only negative vote came from the American judge. These issues were simple under international law. Even the American judge was very careful to qualify his vote. He said “.in<span>,</span> fact I agree with the majority” and about the settlements he said “ I agree with the majority” </td> <td> <span>+</span> The vote was 14 to 1. No controversy. The only negative vote came from the American judge. These issues were simple under international law. Even the American judge was very careful to qualify his vote. He said “.in fact I agree with the majority” and about the settlements he said “ I agree with the majority” </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 211: </td> <td> Line 211: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> I beg you please to not only listen to one side have to offer but listen to the other side. A just small tiny example before I end this. X was shot by the IDF in Bethlehem a few years ago. X was a Christian. X was not involved politically. X was in his car going to place Y. unfortunately, the soldiers in the tank decided they wanted to kill X. 6 bullets in the head and X is dead. The news reported that X was Hamas militant (even though X was in a Christian community) and that he was driving towards them trying to blow up the car. How did they come up with this story? The media asked the Israeli officials what happened. I believe that even the worst murderer will not admit his/her crime. </td> <td> <span>+</span> I beg you please to not only listen to one side have to offer but listen to the other side. A just small tiny example before I end this. X was shot by the IDF in Bethlehem a few years ago. X was a Christian. X was not involved politically. X was in his car going to place Y. unfortunately, the soldiers in the tank decided they wanted to kill X. 6 bullets in the head and X is dead. The news reported that X was Hamas militant (even though X was in a Christian community) and that he was driving towards them trying to blow up the car. How did they come up with this story? The media asked the Israeli officials what happened. I believe that even the worst murderer will not admit his/her crime. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 11:50:26PalestinaComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 195: </td> <td> Line 195: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 11:50:26'' [[nbsp]] I disagree with you IDoNotExist about a few points here and I will try to address them all.<br> + Since you mentioned the peace process, I will start with that one.<br> + The Final status issues. It refers to the supposedly so complicated issues. By coincidence, these issues are to be addressed by the international court.<br> + 1. Borders. The court said the principle says that it is illegal to acquire territories by war. Same as in the situation when Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait. The US intervened and said you are not allowed to that. This is fundamental. A country has to have their borders. This brings us back to the question of the wall. The wall is built inside the Palestinian territories. If Israel wants their security, they can build a wall inside their borders or at least on the borders. It’s like if you are neighbor decides they want to build a fence through your swimming pool. So for a two state solution as you mentioned, Palestinians must have their own borders in order to have a state.<br> + 2. Settlements. The court said it is illegal for an occupying power to transfer their population to the occupied territories (article 49 of the 4th Geneva conventions) . So all of the settlements are illegal. Just a side note about the settlements, I believe you should watch the documentary “The Iron Wall.” It is a good one about the settlements and the wall.<br> + 3. East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem was acquired the same way parts of the west bank were acquired. So East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians according to the court.<br> + 4. The refugees. Under international law, refugees have the right to return.<br> + <br> + The vote was 14 to 1. No controversy. The only negative vote came from the American judge. These issues were simple under international law. Even the American judge was very careful to qualify his vote. He said “.in, fact I agree with the majority” and about the settlements he said “ I agree with the majority”<br> + <br> + So what peace process are we talking about? How can we start a process before we provide the raw material? how can you say that Israel has made offers? As you said, they build settlements to negotiate. Just to make it simple, X takes over all of your property then X agrees to give you everything but your favorite car because X has already given it to his oldest and favorite son. In reality, during the peace talks, the Palestinians offered to give up the right of return for the refugees and agreed to only take 95% of the land that belongs to them under the international law. So now tell me, who is making sacrifices? The Israeli government does not want peace. I will yet admit that many Israelis want peace but they do not have power over the majority.<br> + As can be seen, a two states solution is impossible. I believe there is no such thing. How could the Palestinians have a country when they don’t have borders, they don’t have control over 42% of what is supposed to be their country, and they have a foreign nation (settlements) living inside their territories.<br> + Let us now talk about house demolitions, and checkpoints. I am sorry to tell you that house demolition does not only apply to bases of hamas. House demolition is a way to acquire land. Many houses have been demolished because they happen to be close to the newly built settlements or in the way of the wall. Since the wall and the settlements are illegal then Israel has no right to take one’s property to build the most racist and radical neighbor hoods on the surface of this earth. Settlements are occupied by the most radical jews, and more than 80% of them are armed. They often attack the neighboring Palestinians under complete protection by the IDF. When we talk about settlements, we are not only talking about a peaceful setting where people are there only to live. We are talking about Jewish militias who live inside the Palestinians territories, and are always harassing their neighboring Arabs. And as I said you should see “The Iron Wall”. It is on YouTube.<br> + The checkpoints divide up the Palestinian cities. Between each Palestinian city, there are many checkpoints. Everyone has to stop and everyone has to be checked. You can only hope that the soldiers are in good mood for that day or you will not be able to go to school, work, or just visit your family in a different Palestinian city. I was once put on a checkpoint for 4 hours because the soldier noticed a picture of Jesus Christ in my wallet. He abused me and said a few things about Christianity that I will not mention here.<br> + I know I will never return to my grandfather’s house, but I at least I hope that I could keep the house I own in Bethlehem now.<br> + I beg you please to not only listen to one side have to offer but listen to the other side. A just small tiny example before I end this. X was shot by the IDF in Bethlehem a few years ago. X was a Christian. X was not involved politically. X was in his car going to place Y. unfortunately, the soldiers in the tank decided they wanted to kill X. 6 bullets in the head and X is dead. The news reported that X was Hamas militant (even though X was in a Christian community) and that he was driving towards them trying to blow up the car. How did they come up with this story? The media asked the Israeli officials what happened. I believe that even the worst murderer will not admit his/her crime.<br> + To stop violence, Israel has to take out all of the settlements, give back the Palestinians their land and allow them to have control over that land. Then a peace process could possibly start. I believe that even the most radicals of the Palestinians and the Israelis will give in at that point and support the peace process.<br> + --["Users/Palestina"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 03:23:34IDoNotExistComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 185: </td> <td> Line 185: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 03:23:34'' [[nbsp]] I'd agree that the boycott won't change anything (although it has apparently promoted discussion on the Wiki!) I'd agree that Israel shouldn't be building more settlements in the disputed areas. I imagine that's eventually intended to be used for negotiation, but it really seems dumb to me. No one has ever forced anyone to blow themselves up. That is a choice, and you get zero sympathy from most people when that happens (certainly not from most people in the US). In fact, any attack that deliberately targets civilians hurts the Palestinian case in the eyes of most of the world. If Israel does something that hurts or kills civilians, take the higher ground and tell the story, but don't kill more civilians in return. People just want to live their lives on both sides. They didn't do anything to deserve to be attacked. So don't do it.<br> + <br> + As I understand it, Israel knocks down structures when they are used to store or launch weapons, or as bases for Hamas. If a house is used to launch a missile at Israel, Israel knocks down the house. That's a rather strong disincentive for launching rockets at Israel, don't you think? As for Israel causing more damage, there's a very simple solution to that. Just stop attacking Israel. Everyone knows that Israel will respond with more force than is used against it. It's done so for years. When the attacks have stopped, Israel has stopped responding. Seems pretty obvious to me. This obviously isn't the fault of all of the Palestinians - just the ones who choose to launch attacks. But you (the general you) KNOW that Israel will attack with greater force. Every time. So why in the world would you (the general you, not you specifically) keep doing it?! Certainly, you (the general you) shouldn't keep attacking Israel and then complain that they hit back harder. You (the general you) KNOW they will. So just stop! And you know that when Israel responds, it will have the effect of making things worse for innocent Palestinians who happen to get in the way. So don't attack them. Take the moral high ground. Protest non-violently. It consistently achieves better results. And seriously. Don't reject every offering in every peace negotiation. I've watched Israel make offer after offer over the years, and the various Palestinian governments reject every single one of them, no matter how good they were. It seems to me that those governments had two objectives: 1) Keeping Israel around as an enemy to perpetuate their own popularity and keep themselves in power, and 2) to take a hard line that NO solution would be acceptable except for ones that result in the end of Israel (which obviously no Israeli government could ever agree to.) It does not seem to me that those governments were interested in achieving any sort of real solution.<br> + <br> + Personally, I think there should be two separate states. Even better if some other country has a strip of land between them as a buffer. Palestine agrees not to attack Israel. Israel agrees not to attack Palestine. Everyone lives peacefully. Hopefully, they even learn to get along with each other and cooperate. Wouldn't that be wonderful?<br> + <br> + I simply can't believe that people (on both sides) are spending their whole lives making both themselves and other people miserable over a tiny little strip of land. How many more people have to die before people come to their senses? If every attack has a counter attack, and every counter attack another attack, the cycle of violence will never end. Lots of people will die on both sides. The Palestinians won't improve their situation. You'll still be at it 300 years from now. I'm sorry that you can't live in your grandfather's old house. I can't either. I can't even live in the one I grew up in. But that's life, and I can't do anything about it. Seriously. You're not going to live in that house in the future. That's reality. So you can either choose to dream about living in that one house and choose not to be happy with any house but that specific house. You can yell and scream and boycott a food co-op that has absolutely no involvement at all in events in the middle east. Or you can do whatever you can to live the best life that you can given the life that you've found yourself in. Maybe you can make a major contribution to humanity. Cure a disease. Save a life. Protect the environment. Prevent a war. Encourage others to do the same. Or you can support an endless cycle of violence that won't bring back that house won't help the Palestinians (certainly hasn't yet!), won't help the Israelis (certainly hasn't yet!), and will just result in more death and destruction.<br> + <br> + You can help stop this. --["Users/IDoNotExist"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-05 01:55:04PalestinaComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 176: </td> <td> Line 176: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-02-05 01:55:04'' [[nbsp]] alright, you say the palestinians shall stop the violence. Why dont we reverse the equation and say why wouldn't the IDF stop harrassing palestinians in the palestinian terretories? why wouldnt they remove all the settelments and let palestinans have control over themselves. Israel forced palestinians to carry guns and blow themselves up. Lets not blame palestinians for all the violence, where in reality most of the damage is done by Israel. Just look at the stats of killed, injured, imprisioned, people. Compare the numbers of houses demolished on both sides. 0 houses on the israeli side vs.thousands of palestinian houses. Lets not try to hide the sun with one hand.<br> + You ask me to educate myself. I really do not need your eduacation mate. I ve lived long enough under the israeli occupation that i know well enough about the conflict. Btw, History is usually written by the winner.<br> + SOME palestinians may have turned to germany in WW2 for 2 reasons. first, they wanted to get rid of the british mandate, which favored a zionist state over a palestinian state. second, they were alarmed of the huge numbers of jews coming into palestine at the time. Do not forget that arabs are simites so how could they be anti-simitic?<br> + Actually I am not very much supportive of this boycott. I do not care. This boycott will not bring me back my grandfather's house in haifa or his olive gardens in west jerusalem. In fact, I want people to educate themselves a little more about the conflict.<br> + I will read the book.<br> + I think you would enjoy reading "Blood Brothers" by Elias Chacour, a christian palestinian who lives inside the israeli borders.<br> + <br> + --["Users/Palestina"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-04 02:22:01IDoNotExist(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 175: </td> <td> Line 175: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I suspect that the Israelis would not be at all happy with that solution. Such a state would be majority Palestinian, and would have radically different laws than the current state. Given that the Palestinians have been run by a series of dictators and violent terrorist groups (or in the current case, a weak and ineffective government plus a terrorist group which has the stated goal of destroying Israel) over the years, I wouldn't be too optimistic about such a state remaining a democracy for long. Also, you would have two very different cultures, with lots of people who strongly dislike each other, and with a record of violence towards each other, stuck in the same country. Not good. Generally, countries like that stay stable only when there is a strong dictator in power to quell any internal strife. When the dictator disappears, the two cultures start killing each other. Examples: Rwanda, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, parts of Mexico, etc. (Also, possibly India and Pakistan, since those two were artificially split.) As for handling this the way we handled Rwanda, we pretty much ignored it, and several million people died in one of the largest genocides in history. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I suspect that the Israelis would not be at all happy with that solution. Such a state would be majority Palestinian, and would have radically different laws than the current state. Given that the Palestinians have been run by a series of dictators and violent terrorist groups (or in the current case, a weak and ineffective government plus a terrorist group which has the stated goal of destroying Israel) over the years, I wouldn't be too optimistic about such a state remaining a democracy for long. Also, you would have two very different cultures, with lots of people who strongly dislike each other, and with a record of violence towards each other, stuck in the same country. Not good. Generally, countries like that stay stable only when there is a strong dictator in power to quell any internal strife. When the dictator disappears, the two cultures start killing each other. Examples: Rwanda, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, parts of Mexico, etc. (Also, possibly India and Pakistan, since those two were artificially split.) As for handling this the way we handled Rwanda, we pretty much ignored it, and several million people died in one of the largest genocides in history.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;--["Users/IDoNotExist"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-04 01:41:05NickSchmalenberger(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 173: </td> <td> Line 173: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I think Rwanda was pretty glossed over from the beginning, with the Clinton administration being reluctant to call it genocide and everything. At the same time, I think the causes of genocide in general and the Israel/Palestinian conflict are really resource allocation problems and until these are solved violence will probably continue. My opinion has been there should be one democratic state and if Zionists are a minority, oh well. Maybe I should read "The Case for Israel"... --["Users/NickSchmalenberger"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I think Rwanda was pretty glossed over from the beginning, with the Clinton administration being reluctant to call it genocide and everything. At the same time, I think the causes of genocide in general and the Israel/Palestinian conflict are really resource allocation problems and until these are solved violence will probably continue. My opinion has been there should be one democratic state and if Zionists are a minority<span>&nbsp;in that state</span>, oh well. Maybe I should read "The Case for Israel"... --["Users/NickSchmalenberger"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-03 22:33:59IDoNotExist(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 175: </td> <td> Line 175: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I suspect that the Israelis would not be at all happy with that solution. Such a state would be majority Palestinian, and would have radically different laws than the current state. Given that the Palestinians have been run by a series of dictators and violent terrorist groups (or in the current case, a weak and ineffective government plus a terrorist group which has the stated goal of destroying Israel) over the years, I wouldn't be too optimistic about such a state remaining a democracy for long. Also, you would have two very different cultures, with lots of people who strongly dislike each other, and with a record of violence towards each other, stuck in the same country. Not good. Generally, countries like that stay stable only when there is a strong dictator in power to quell any internal strife. When the dictator disappears, the two cultures start killing each other. Examples: Rwanda, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, parts of Mexico, etc. (Also, possibly India and Pakistan, since those two were artificially split.) As for handling this the way we handled Rwanda, we pretty much ignored it, and several million people died in one of the largest genocides in history.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-03 19:39:36PaulAmnuaypayoatagreement with Nick S. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 174: </td> <td> Line 174: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I agree Nick. One state for all of them, where everyone is equal under the law and ruled by a secular government with no official religion, like our own country. I also never read "The Case for Israel", but I feel that our time would be better spent promoting the one state idea we seem to agree on. - ["Paul Amnuaypayoat"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctionshttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Boycott%2C_Divestment%2C_And_Sanctions2010-02-03 19:14:45NickSchmalenberger <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Boycott, Divestment, And Sanctions<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 173: </td> <td> Line 173: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I think Rwanda was pretty glossed over from the beginning, with the Clinton administration being reluctant to call it genocide and everything. At the same time, I think the causes of genocide in general and the Israel/Palestinian conflict are really resource allocation problems and until these are solved violence will probably continue. My opinion has been there should be one democratic state and if Zionists are a minority, oh well. Maybe I should read "The Case for Israel"... --["Users/NickSchmalenberger"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div>