Scarlett quits
- Thread starter davekc
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
About those subsidies that are also available inside of Israel proper (if it can be said there is such a thing):
SodaStream: Israel isn’t providing promised aid for plant inside Green Line - Haaretz
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well, that's quite wonderful ... but it still doesn't change the fact that under international humanitarian law the settlements - and the businesses operating in them - are illegal ...
BTW, I've seen varying accounts regarding the pay average, one that I just read in a mainstream publication (Haaretz, NYT, WaPo ... don't recall specifically which one) in the last 24 to 36 hours that are less than the 4 to 6 times figure you mention above ...
Fair point.
Or at least in conflict with humanitarianism as you see or understand it ...
Please expand on how their stance conflicts with humanitarianism ... I'm interested to explore the logic of that ... because I personally don't see it.
In fact, I see it in the exact opposite manner.
Again, I ask: where can I find Oxfam's statement that say:
"We'd rather see hundreds of Palestinians making 4-6 times the average Palestinian wage be fired and put out of work, thereby dramatically increasing the chances of those workers sinking back into poverty, than give up our political agenda."
This is twice now that you have repeated this "they would rather have them fired" framing ... it's starting to smell like someone's talking point ...
Clearly you don't ...
However what I see is that you are offering an outcome or result of their stance which is based on your own conclusion of what will happen ... and that isn't really their position or stance at all - it's your additive.
Furthermore, it appears to me - and I may certainly wrong on this - that you are presuming that the conclusion you offer (workers being fired) is the only one possible.
I don't know that that is true at all.
I'm waiting to see that statement from Oxfam that says:
"We'd rather see hundreds of Palestinians making 4-6 times the average Palestinian wage be fired and put out of work, thereby dramatically increasing the chances of those workers sinking back into poverty, than give up our political agenda."
I wouldn't disagree with that ...
But then we arrive at the question of: What practical methods and means one might use to accomplish that end ?
It seems they have some additional terms they have put it in as well (selectively quoted to show some relevant points) that clarify how they go about doing the two things you mention:
What we do | Oxfam International
That may well be true to some extent ... but from my view of the above (quoted) it also looks like want to do it by being Gandhi ...
Well that explains the Gandhi connection then ...
Ok ... so we are agreed ... politics and humanitarianism are not mutually exclusive, and operating in a political context can ultimately serve to further humanitarian ends ...
One can say that they base something solely on X, Y, or Z's own words ... and still come to a flawed or inaccurate conclusion ...
Accurate, correct data (in this instance certain words) can used to draw a an incorrect conclusion ... happens all the time ... particularly if the data set is incomplete (lacking relevant data), incorrectly evaluated as to it's relative significance or other factors, etc.
Well I was only speaking to what your words seemed to imply to me, which were apparently incorrect inferences on my part.
Right. That's something I'm looking forward to examining further ... once I get a link to where they have made that claim.
Personally, I find it hard to imagine that they made the claim to be apolitical ... given what I quoted above from their "What We Do" page ... it certainly seems at least potentially somewhat political in nature to me ...
And not only that, there's this from their "How We Fight Poverty" page [all emphasis mine]:
How we fight poverty | Oxfam International
I guess I'd have to see what their logic and reasoning is that's behind the claim that are apolitical to understand it and render a judgement ... but it sure looks to me like they are quite political ... and really make no bones about it.
My bad ... I should have separated out the exact part that I was referring to from what I quoted, or formulated my statement so that it was clear what I was referring to.
Yes ... the "why" of the 22 percent employment in the West Bank.
And while we're on that matter, let me offer this from the Executive Summary of the 15 July 2011 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development "Report on UNCTAD assistance to the Palestinian people: Developments in the economy of the occupied Palestinian territory" [all emphasis mine]:
Report on UNCTAD assistance to the Palestinian people: Developments in the economy of the occupied Palestinian territory.pdf
The severance of East Jerusalem from the remainder of the West Bank is a direct result of the creation and expansion of Ma’ale Adumim, in which the industrial park of Mishor Adumim is located, and the E1_Plan.
And not only that, it's existence, along with the the E1 Plan, appears to part of an overall plan that would serve to eventually bisect the West Bank, cutting it half and isolating one part from another ... which would make any future Palestinian state dis-contiguous, slicing it into at least three, if not four separate disconnected areas (Gaza, North West Bank, South West Bank, and East Jerusalem ... assuming that Israel could be persuaded to relinquish East Jerusalem, which appears to be highly unlikely)
Right ... and not just unemployment ... but the entire Palestinian economy.
And what about controlling freedom of movement inside the OPT as well ?
Could that have an effect of the economic prosperity or economic health also ?
Tax Revenues Fund Occupation ---> Occupation = Lack of Economic Prosperity ---> Unemployment
It's not just the employment rate they contribute to in a negative way, it's the entire Palestinian economic enchilada ...
One has to get beyond primary, direct causes and effects ... and get into secondary, tertiary, or higher indirect causes and effects ...
SodaStream, to some degree, enables and funds the occupation, and provides a pretext for it to continue to exist.
By the way ... did I mention that SodaStream's existence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is illegal under international law ?
Last edited:
This Part One
In England and most countries, in order to be granted non-profit status as a humanitarian charity, you must be politically neutral, non-partisan. It's a position Oxfam was specifically founded on, because the founding committee felt that their work had to cut through politics. They were initially founded in order to provide famine relief to the people of Greece due to Nazi occupation and the Allied blockade. Despite being British, they managed to cut right through both of those political positions and get the job done. Being apolitical was something Oxfam wore, for many years, and rightfully so, as a halo of sorts.
Just prior to that, the armed conflict in Nicaragua was increasingly disrupting the Oxfam programs there. Reformists and reactionary groups all over the region were polarized. The nightmare of the death squads and the disappearance of people who championed the interests of the poor was moving into El Salvador and Guatemala, as well. Educators and health workers working for church and other volunteer groups were harassed routinely and even prosecuted, with the people they helped being forced to flee or even being killed. In protecting this status quo, those forces protecting it were doing so with violence, and without any legal backing (except, of course, in South Africa, where they had the law to back up the brutality). Oxfam's mission of taking on both the cause and effects of human suffering, could not totally escape the overlap between removing obstacles to people's development and protecting human rights. That's where the almost inevitable blurring of the lines of politics and humanitarian aid come into play.
A policy paper was drawn up, mainly for South Africa, that attempted to set up a conceptual and practical framework in which Oxfam could pursue solidarity with the poor in situations where their interests were being violently opposed, while at the same time remaining within the bounds of charity law. The paper noted that poverty and rights issues were often inextricably interlinked and that this presented a conundrum within charity law. The new policy attempted to carve out a "humanitarian space" in which to work, without being ideologically labeled. The framework allowed Oxfam to work via some other organization, such as a local union or political organization who's primary functions were not entirely philanthropic. The policy paper re-articulated Oxfam's rigid notion of humanitarian neutrality, namely, Need Above Political Divide. This was in 1979.
In 1980 when Oxfam began to explore a presence in South Africa, they didn't want to have it dome with a string of disconnected projects, and they didn't want to partner up with the usual NGOs who tended to compete in showing off their projects, how much money to give, what it should be used for, and what the recipients were expected to do in return. But they had trouble getting started and finding locals who would help, because of Oxfam's neutrality. The fence-sitting promoted distrust from the very people they were trying to help. But they finally got a few people from what would become Zimbabwe to get on board, some of whom were already consultants to Oxfam and were influential in their communities. One of these people was a woman named Sithembiso Nyoni who came up with a radical plan that was for a very different type of role in South Africa than Oxfam was wanting. Her approach naturally came out of her and other's experience of independence struggle, and centered on helping poor people understand and overcome their powerlessness in the face of the forces controlling their lives. It was all about people helping themselves, in opposition to ruling forces, rather than just giving them aid packages. This was something Oxfam really couldn't do directly, as it was incompatible with charity law. So, Nyoni founded ORAP, the Organization of Rural Associations for Progress. Oxfam initially wouldn't even fund it, because of the conflict of charity law.
In the early 80s dissident activity came under a rather harsh security crackdown from the Zimbabwe government, who took Oxfam to task for favoring (mostly) the Matabele people. Oxfam stood firm saying that poverty was its only concern, not tribal affiliation. Oxfam stated that while ORAP was a grassroots movement, it was in no sense political. Even though they knew darn good and well ORAP was political, it was a stance they nevertheless had to take. It was a courageous stand, depending on your point of view, and one on which they did not waver, but it was their first step into taking political sides.
Shortly after that, the established African presence of Oxfam began changing, with new African Field Directors ad African field staff, all of whom natutrally had a local bias for some wider policy issues, which they began taking on. They also demanded that Oxfam International take a clearer stance on aid to victims of the liberation struggle. Zimbabwe independence acted as the spark to fight for freedom in Namibia and South Africa, but it was a political position that Oxfam couldn't really take. But those in Africa were determined that the fence-sitting of Zimbabwe would not be carried over to Namibia and South Africa. A new, more politically aggressive policy was formed, but one in which Oxfam could remain politically neutral. Then, miraculously, the South African government handed to Oxfam on a silver platter all the motivation needed to become political in every sense of the word. In the middle of the night an Oxfam field officer, his wife and baby were violently arrested in their home and taken into police custody, held without charges (charges were never filed) and without comment.
Whatever repugnance Oxfam felt towards Apartheid, it had never given direct support against the system per se, but they were proposing that very thing now. The Oxfam Desk Officer in England presented a new policy paper to the trustees. The paper cited the worsening of the situation and the exodus of refugees of Namibia and South Africa, institutional violence of individuals, population removals by removing families and entire communities, detentions and expulsions. The paper took sides, and backed the liberation's call for (you'll get a kick out of this) South African boycott, economic disinvestment and sanctions. The paper took the position that Apartheid and poverty were two sides of the same coin, indivisible from each other, that South African legal enforcements of human rights violations was a fe facto structural enforcement of poverty. Oxfam redefined poverty not to mean the absence of goods and services, but rather the pauperisation of not allowing the people their own self-determination in having control over their workings. Oxfam declared the primary reason for poverty in South Africa was Apartheid.
The political wranglings behind the scenes within Oxfam were fast and furious, because most of the trustees had serious doubts that the motivation for the policy change was purely humanitarian rather than political. They were eventually swayed, under the condition that all grants must correlate with the view that the ultimate obstacle to relieving poverty in Namibia and South Africa was the existence of Apartheid.
In 1983 the new South African Constitution was introduced, which continued to exclude all blacks from political representation. That one triggered a new struggle against Apartheid within the republic, and forced Oxfam to evaluate its own disinvestment position in South Africa. Oxfam's original bank, Barclays, was heavily invested in South Africa, and after much sole searching (and the efforts of a special committee within Oxfam) Oxfam decided to pull its accounts from Barclays. One more step towards officially taking a political position. Not quite there yet, tho.
Then, because of international pressure for sanctions, and for Britain's own acceptance of sanctions of South Africa, in 1987 Oxfam took the official position of advocating sanctions, stating "we can now advocate sanctions with greater confidence within the constraints of Charity Law." They had more confidence than they should have.
Somewhere between handing out blankets and battling over foreign policy is a line charities may not cross. The confusion begins when charities go beyond emergency relief efforts and begin to attack the roots of poverty and suffering. Things can get very tricky when you do that. In 1991 the British government's Charity Commission judged that Oxfam crossed the line by publicly supporting and encouraging sanctions against South Africa. They were given a warning. Well, two of them. They were warned that if they do it again, they will be fined an amount equal to whatever they spend, directly or indirectly, on political causes.
That's why even though they support the BDS Movement, they won't say so in those words. They'll dance all around it, but they won't actually say it. They can't. They will give money to groups who do support it, though, but it's always given for some stated specific humanitarian cause, even though they know what they money is really going to be used for. They'll make statements referencing arguably the most overused phrase in the history of phrases: "illegal under international law" as justification. They'll say things like, "Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law," which is a way of supporting BDS without actually supporting BDS. Otherwise they wouldn't give a rat's furry little crack where Scarlett Johansson's endorsement money comes from, because her income from SodaStream shouldn't be at all in conflict with Oxfam's humanitarian goals. Yet it is, in fact, in conflict with Oxfam's humanitarian goals, because their goals are the root causes of poverty, which in this case means they have to support the B, the D or the S, or all three. And it's why Oxfam's statement on Johansson is worded as precisely as it is, qualified with the "Oxfam believes that businesses, such as SodaStream, that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support."
That is absolutely being political, without technically being political. But with their current thinking, it's almost impossible to separate the two.
"We have come to see that our primary object of relieving poverty, distress and suffering cannot be achieved without advocacy on behalf of the people we are trying to help,'' said Mary Cherry, chairwoman of Oxfam's trustees.
And there's the rub. It's one thing to say, 'We need more food.' But it's a whole 'nuther thing to offer a political solution and then campaign for that solution, which is what they are doing nowadays, either directly or indirectly. Their efforts have become Socialist out of necessity to achieve their goals.
There is much more history of Oxfam than I've gone into here, but ever since South Africa and the British government's charity ruling (and their own expansion into business and brands), they have become far more political, and assertive, but always very, very carefully within the stated context of an "ongoing poverty and denial of rights."
End of Part One...
I haven't. I haven't really looked very hard, tho. I can scan a portion of Oxfam's original charter if you like, where they explicitly profess the expected politically neutral stance of most non-profit organizations. But I think after reading the following, you won't need such a scanned document.
In England and most countries, in order to be granted non-profit status as a humanitarian charity, you must be politically neutral, non-partisan. It's a position Oxfam was specifically founded on, because the founding committee felt that their work had to cut through politics. They were initially founded in order to provide famine relief to the people of Greece due to Nazi occupation and the Allied blockade. Despite being British, they managed to cut right through both of those political positions and get the job done. Being apolitical was something Oxfam wore, for many years, and rightfully so, as a halo of sorts.
Setting aside the fact that one person's definition of injustice, oppression and inhumanity might not be a consensus definition and can be influenced by a political position, actions of a political nature towards a humanitarian end is precisely how Oxfam began edging into politics and taking certain political positions, rather than cutting through politics. It began, ironically, in South Africa during Apartheid.
Just prior to that, the armed conflict in Nicaragua was increasingly disrupting the Oxfam programs there. Reformists and reactionary groups all over the region were polarized. The nightmare of the death squads and the disappearance of people who championed the interests of the poor was moving into El Salvador and Guatemala, as well. Educators and health workers working for church and other volunteer groups were harassed routinely and even prosecuted, with the people they helped being forced to flee or even being killed. In protecting this status quo, those forces protecting it were doing so with violence, and without any legal backing (except, of course, in South Africa, where they had the law to back up the brutality). Oxfam's mission of taking on both the cause and effects of human suffering, could not totally escape the overlap between removing obstacles to people's development and protecting human rights. That's where the almost inevitable blurring of the lines of politics and humanitarian aid come into play.
A policy paper was drawn up, mainly for South Africa, that attempted to set up a conceptual and practical framework in which Oxfam could pursue solidarity with the poor in situations where their interests were being violently opposed, while at the same time remaining within the bounds of charity law. The paper noted that poverty and rights issues were often inextricably interlinked and that this presented a conundrum within charity law. The new policy attempted to carve out a "humanitarian space" in which to work, without being ideologically labeled. The framework allowed Oxfam to work via some other organization, such as a local union or political organization who's primary functions were not entirely philanthropic. The policy paper re-articulated Oxfam's rigid notion of humanitarian neutrality, namely, Need Above Political Divide. This was in 1979.
In 1980 when Oxfam began to explore a presence in South Africa, they didn't want to have it dome with a string of disconnected projects, and they didn't want to partner up with the usual NGOs who tended to compete in showing off their projects, how much money to give, what it should be used for, and what the recipients were expected to do in return. But they had trouble getting started and finding locals who would help, because of Oxfam's neutrality. The fence-sitting promoted distrust from the very people they were trying to help. But they finally got a few people from what would become Zimbabwe to get on board, some of whom were already consultants to Oxfam and were influential in their communities. One of these people was a woman named Sithembiso Nyoni who came up with a radical plan that was for a very different type of role in South Africa than Oxfam was wanting. Her approach naturally came out of her and other's experience of independence struggle, and centered on helping poor people understand and overcome their powerlessness in the face of the forces controlling their lives. It was all about people helping themselves, in opposition to ruling forces, rather than just giving them aid packages. This was something Oxfam really couldn't do directly, as it was incompatible with charity law. So, Nyoni founded ORAP, the Organization of Rural Associations for Progress. Oxfam initially wouldn't even fund it, because of the conflict of charity law.
In the early 80s dissident activity came under a rather harsh security crackdown from the Zimbabwe government, who took Oxfam to task for favoring (mostly) the Matabele people. Oxfam stood firm saying that poverty was its only concern, not tribal affiliation. Oxfam stated that while ORAP was a grassroots movement, it was in no sense political. Even though they knew darn good and well ORAP was political, it was a stance they nevertheless had to take. It was a courageous stand, depending on your point of view, and one on which they did not waver, but it was their first step into taking political sides.
Shortly after that, the established African presence of Oxfam began changing, with new African Field Directors ad African field staff, all of whom natutrally had a local bias for some wider policy issues, which they began taking on. They also demanded that Oxfam International take a clearer stance on aid to victims of the liberation struggle. Zimbabwe independence acted as the spark to fight for freedom in Namibia and South Africa, but it was a political position that Oxfam couldn't really take. But those in Africa were determined that the fence-sitting of Zimbabwe would not be carried over to Namibia and South Africa. A new, more politically aggressive policy was formed, but one in which Oxfam could remain politically neutral. Then, miraculously, the South African government handed to Oxfam on a silver platter all the motivation needed to become political in every sense of the word. In the middle of the night an Oxfam field officer, his wife and baby were violently arrested in their home and taken into police custody, held without charges (charges were never filed) and without comment.
Whatever repugnance Oxfam felt towards Apartheid, it had never given direct support against the system per se, but they were proposing that very thing now. The Oxfam Desk Officer in England presented a new policy paper to the trustees. The paper cited the worsening of the situation and the exodus of refugees of Namibia and South Africa, institutional violence of individuals, population removals by removing families and entire communities, detentions and expulsions. The paper took sides, and backed the liberation's call for (you'll get a kick out of this) South African boycott, economic disinvestment and sanctions. The paper took the position that Apartheid and poverty were two sides of the same coin, indivisible from each other, that South African legal enforcements of human rights violations was a fe facto structural enforcement of poverty. Oxfam redefined poverty not to mean the absence of goods and services, but rather the pauperisation of not allowing the people their own self-determination in having control over their workings. Oxfam declared the primary reason for poverty in South Africa was Apartheid.
The political wranglings behind the scenes within Oxfam were fast and furious, because most of the trustees had serious doubts that the motivation for the policy change was purely humanitarian rather than political. They were eventually swayed, under the condition that all grants must correlate with the view that the ultimate obstacle to relieving poverty in Namibia and South Africa was the existence of Apartheid.
In 1983 the new South African Constitution was introduced, which continued to exclude all blacks from political representation. That one triggered a new struggle against Apartheid within the republic, and forced Oxfam to evaluate its own disinvestment position in South Africa. Oxfam's original bank, Barclays, was heavily invested in South Africa, and after much sole searching (and the efforts of a special committee within Oxfam) Oxfam decided to pull its accounts from Barclays. One more step towards officially taking a political position. Not quite there yet, tho.
Then, because of international pressure for sanctions, and for Britain's own acceptance of sanctions of South Africa, in 1987 Oxfam took the official position of advocating sanctions, stating "we can now advocate sanctions with greater confidence within the constraints of Charity Law." They had more confidence than they should have.
Somewhere between handing out blankets and battling over foreign policy is a line charities may not cross. The confusion begins when charities go beyond emergency relief efforts and begin to attack the roots of poverty and suffering. Things can get very tricky when you do that. In 1991 the British government's Charity Commission judged that Oxfam crossed the line by publicly supporting and encouraging sanctions against South Africa. They were given a warning. Well, two of them. They were warned that if they do it again, they will be fined an amount equal to whatever they spend, directly or indirectly, on political causes.
That's why even though they support the BDS Movement, they won't say so in those words. They'll dance all around it, but they won't actually say it. They can't. They will give money to groups who do support it, though, but it's always given for some stated specific humanitarian cause, even though they know what they money is really going to be used for. They'll make statements referencing arguably the most overused phrase in the history of phrases: "illegal under international law" as justification. They'll say things like, "Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law," which is a way of supporting BDS without actually supporting BDS. Otherwise they wouldn't give a rat's furry little crack where Scarlett Johansson's endorsement money comes from, because her income from SodaStream shouldn't be at all in conflict with Oxfam's humanitarian goals. Yet it is, in fact, in conflict with Oxfam's humanitarian goals, because their goals are the root causes of poverty, which in this case means they have to support the B, the D or the S, or all three. And it's why Oxfam's statement on Johansson is worded as precisely as it is, qualified with the "Oxfam believes that businesses, such as SodaStream, that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support."
That is absolutely being political, without technically being political. But with their current thinking, it's almost impossible to separate the two.
"We have come to see that our primary object of relieving poverty, distress and suffering cannot be achieved without advocacy on behalf of the people we are trying to help,'' said Mary Cherry, chairwoman of Oxfam's trustees.
And there's the rub. It's one thing to say, 'We need more food.' But it's a whole 'nuther thing to offer a political solution and then campaign for that solution, which is what they are doing nowadays, either directly or indirectly. Their efforts have become Socialist out of necessity to achieve their goals.
There is much more history of Oxfam than I've gone into here, but ever since South Africa and the British government's charity ruling (and their own expansion into business and brands), they have become far more political, and assertive, but always very, very carefully within the stated context of an "ongoing poverty and denial of rights."
End of Part One...
This is Part Two
I got involved with Oxfam when I was in high school. They were the first charity to truly strike a chord within me. They had a simple, noble cause free from BS, and most importantly ensured that the aid they were involved with actually got to where it was supposed go to. They were virtually unique in that regard. They were also the epitome of teach a man to fish, where instead of simply handing out free stuff, they taught people how to fend for themselves and be self-sufficient. But they have strayed from that, a great deal. They still do amazing work, but too much of it is rooted in politics, and too often they have bullying tactics to achieve what they want. They have become a multinational corporation in the pejorative sense. They have net assets of $88 million (as of 2012) and annual donation revenues in the $80 million range, not even including the revenue from the more than 1200 Oxfam Shops around the world (750 in Great Britain alone) nor the revenue they get from their Fair Trade brands or the revenue they get from their Fairtrade Certification business. Added together, they have a total revenue of about half a billion dollars. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But they are increasingly about the money, so they can expand their work. (See The Robin Hood Tax | Oxfam International). Their halo is a little too tarnished for my taste.
It is my position that neither side is clean in this, and neither's position is as black and white and cut and dry as both claim it to be.
The overused phrase "illegal under international law" and when and how it gets used by an awful lot of people reminds me of the hoards of people who came out against Michael Vick for his role in dog fighting. People who couldn't care less about dog fighting took the opportunity to just hammer Vick over it, and it wasn't because they disliked dog fighting. So this "illegal under international law" gets used by a lot of people the same way, and for the same reason. While every country that I know of has declared the settlements illegal, and I agree with them, the legality is still nevertheless disputed by the parties involved, and won't be resolved until the final status of the negotiations between the two parties. Just because someone (or a snotload of someones) can deem something illegal under international law, doesn't make it so as long as the legality is disputed, regardless of how childish of the loopholes Israel is trying to squeeze through. The only solution is going to be a two-state solution, and it's a solution that I don't think is ever going to happen.
I got involved with Oxfam when I was in high school. They were the first charity to truly strike a chord within me. They had a simple, noble cause free from BS, and most importantly ensured that the aid they were involved with actually got to where it was supposed go to. They were virtually unique in that regard. They were also the epitome of teach a man to fish, where instead of simply handing out free stuff, they taught people how to fend for themselves and be self-sufficient. But they have strayed from that, a great deal. They still do amazing work, but too much of it is rooted in politics, and too often they have bullying tactics to achieve what they want. They have become a multinational corporation in the pejorative sense. They have net assets of $88 million (as of 2012) and annual donation revenues in the $80 million range, not even including the revenue from the more than 1200 Oxfam Shops around the world (750 in Great Britain alone) nor the revenue they get from their Fair Trade brands or the revenue they get from their Fairtrade Certification business. Added together, they have a total revenue of about half a billion dollars. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But they are increasingly about the money, so they can expand their work. (See The Robin Hood Tax | Oxfam International). Their halo is a little too tarnished for my taste.
They still do a lot of amazing work. They're certainly not all bad. But they used to be all good.
They still do those thing. Like I said, they're not all bad.
And that's the official position they have taken, since 1991.
Yep. "Famine relief" has taken on a whole new look.
Nope
Nope
Nope
Nope. If you don't even control your own borders, how can you import or export anything at all? You can't, obviously.
It is my position that neither side is clean in this, and neither's position is as black and white and cut and dry as both claim it to be.
No, there isn't. And it's hardly a straw man argument. It's the reality of the situation. If SodaStream is pressured to the point of having to relocate, than that's precisely the outcome.
I don't frame it quite as simplistically, either. I frame it in terms of having a job paying a good wage is further from poverty than is having no job that pays nothing, which doesn't jibe with Oxfam's statement.
As noted above, they aren't publicly on the bandwagon, but they're on it just the same.
It may seem that way, because I haven't expounded on it much, but rest assured I fully understand the BDS Movement, and Oxfam's position and why they take it, as well as why they take it the way the do.
That's the public PR image of Oxfam, but the reality is a little different. I won't go as far to say Oxfam is antisemitic, buuuut they're close, and at the very least open themselves up to that charge. Generally speaking, Oxfam isn't publicly opposed to trade with businesses in Israel proper, but they tend to side with most of the issues of the BDS Movement. They won't publicly support the movement, although they came about as close as it gets in their statement regarding Johannsen. They've had a presence in Israel and the West Bank since 1950. They have quite a history there that puts them far more on the side of the Palestinians than the Israelis. Not totally, but they definitely lean.
One can imagine the howls within Oxfam.
The overused phrase "illegal under international law" and when and how it gets used by an awful lot of people reminds me of the hoards of people who came out against Michael Vick for his role in dog fighting. People who couldn't care less about dog fighting took the opportunity to just hammer Vick over it, and it wasn't because they disliked dog fighting. So this "illegal under international law" gets used by a lot of people the same way, and for the same reason. While every country that I know of has declared the settlements illegal, and I agree with them, the legality is still nevertheless disputed by the parties involved, and won't be resolved until the final status of the negotiations between the two parties. Just because someone (or a snotload of someones) can deem something illegal under international law, doesn't make it so as long as the legality is disputed, regardless of how childish of the loopholes Israel is trying to squeeze through. The only solution is going to be a two-state solution, and it's a solution that I don't think is ever going to happen.
If one wants to be intellectually honest, they'll admit that poverty cannot ever be eliminated.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
That largely goes without saying ...However, that really isn't the only question that deserves to asked and addressed ... another question is:Would they, or could they, be better off if they had the freedom to create their own SodaStream ?Is a man (or a people) better off with a decent paying job (relatively speaking) one that he has to sacrifice his human rights for, including the right to self-determination ... or is he better off retaining those rights and having the freedom and opportunity to try and determine his own economic well-being ?What effect does a perpetuation of the occupation have on the remainder of Palestinian society ?Is it morally justifiable for a small minority to contribute to something that creates an immense amount of bad effects on their fellow countrymen, just in order to have a decent job - a job with something that is part and parcel of the very thing which is inflicting the bad effects ?
Well, that's an important thing to know ... because it goes to the fundamental nature of the society that they are being forced to live in ...I will address this matter in greater detail in a later post.
Yes ... do you know the backstory on that ?How it came to be ?It will be covered in a later post in greater detail.
Found to be unfounded by WHO ?
In theory ... of course, being bound by law is really only as good as the enforcement of law - from Kav Lavoed, an Israeli labor organization that works with foreign workers:
Minimum Wage in Judea and Samaria: Delay in Enforcement | Kav LaOved - Worker's HotlineIt's always "very complex" ...
Ok, I'll accept that as true for the sale of argument.Let's address it in this manner - your original statement was:"If Oxfam is more concerned about poverty than politics, they wouldn't care one way or the other how those jobs were created."Really ?So, if those jobs referred to above as created, enabled or created further, or greater, poverty in others than the ones specifically employed, to say nothing of providing a justification and pretext for the denial of human rights, including the right to self-determination and political sovereignty, Oxfam shouldn't care ? Life doesn't occur in an isolated vacuum, where single events or circumstances have absolutely no relation or bearing to other events or circumstances that exist around them.Having laser-like focus can certainly be useful at times ... but one has to be careful so as not to miss the forest because one's nose is a millimeter off the bark of that single tree one is standing in front of ...
Being focused soley on the money that a few earn misses the larger boat that has just left the dock.
Oh I don't know about that ... I'd venture to say that many slaves were not living in abject (my term not yours) poverty by any means ... wasn't necessarily in the slave-owners best interest to let them starve or be without shelter ... some degree of poverty certainly.(I hear the house ****** were treated particularly well.)But it is certainly true that to a very large degree they lived without very much freedom and the ability to exercise their right to self-determination ...
Huh ?What evidence do you have that that is their motivation ?
From my perspective you don't pass the smell test on the issue ...
Speaking of straw men ... with a dollop of the fallacy of a false dilemma thrown in for good measure ... lol ...No, because that isn't Oxfam's position.My position is that the illegal settlements and the illegal population transfers should end ... they are illegal, in violation of international humanitarian law ... and further, that the occupation itself should end, and the Palestinians should be allowed, not denied, their rights to self-determination ... including the right to attempt to achieve their own economic prosperity ...Things that contribute to the perpetuation of the above are not helpful in resolving the situation in a just and fair manner that complies with international law.
And it is your position that the Palestinians should just ignore the theft of their land and natural resources in furtherance of an illegal colonization and settlement by foreigners, suffer a brutal military occupation, accept the denial of their human rights, including the right to self determination and political sovereignty so that a small minority of Palestinians can have decent paying jobs ... from their oppressors and overlords ?
Yes ... that would be quite interesting indeed ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Bet they're hoping that ol' Pillow Lips and that Super Bowl ad will help - from Bloomberg:
SodaStream Drops Amid Sanctions Over Jewish Settlements - Bloomberg
I don't disagree with that at all.
Humanitarianism at its core is the doctrine that humanity's obligations are concerned wholly with the welfare of the human race, meaning without regard to race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, marital status or socioeconomic status or anything else you can think us that can be used to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The first rule of humanitarianism is do no harm. Using politics to achieve the desired welfare status isn't in and of itself wrong, but when you choose sides in a political dispute where one side will win and the other side will lose, if the losing side can be damaged in any way then it's political position in conflict with humanitarianism.
I really don't know why you presented that in quotes, as if it was an actual quote, because I didn't present it as a quote, nor did I imply that it was a quote. I clearly presented it as my own opinion based on my own knowledge of Oxfam.
In a "well, duh!" moment, it's my own talking point, straight up.
I supposed it could be characterized as my own additive and not Oxfam's official position on the matter, since they haven't openly stated they support BDS. They have, however, openly stated that they are opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements. What that means is, unless or until SodaStream ceases all trade from the Israeli settlement, Oxfam will openly oppose their existence in the settlement. The only satisfactory resolution to the occupation is that it end, and by necessity the Israeli businesses operating in the settlements with it, either by those businesses going out of business, or relocating out of the settlements. Again, you think that's fallacious, inaccurate and grossly misleading. I don't. I think it's logical, accurate, and, based on history, spot on.
The ONLY possible conclusion? No. But it's the most likely and most plausible conclusion, considering the existence of the settlements, and the businesses operating in them, is a direct impediment to the resolution talks, according to the Palestinians. One of the primary goals of BDS is for Israel to end its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands, and there is only one way that that goal can be realized, and that is if Israel ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands, and the only way that can happen is if all Israeli companies are no longer operating in the settlements. I know this seems complicated, but that means SodaStream will have to go out of business entirely (very unlikely considering their global presence) or close up and move elsewhere, unless it agrees to sell part of its company to the Palestinians and make them partners in the enterprise, and I just don't see shareholders going for that.
Why keep doing this? It's clearly not a quote.
You think my data set is solely limited to Google searches or something? I assure you it is not. My conclusions are not based on an incomplete understanding of Oxfam, nor are they flawed or inaccurate.
That's awesome. I couldn't have said it better myself. I encourage you to read a book called A Cause for Our Times: Oxfam - The First Fifty Years, and get the history and evolution of the organization. It'll give you a better understanding of they got to where they are now. In one of the above threads where I talk about the history of how and why they began to become political, most of that is pulled from the book. The book goes into much more detail and gives a much clearer picture of the history of the organization.
For the record, I do think Oxfam is on the right side of the issue. It seems clear as day to me that the settlements are not only illegal, but wrong. I just don't agree with what Oxfam has become over these last 20 years or so, despite the fact that they do some incredible work, most of it really good. I just think they're invilved in a few things, and use a few methods, that they don't need to be doing in order to do their humanitarian efforts.
I would agree with that. The pretext for continued existence, is, in my opinion, the biggest problem of all. I also don't know anyone with a publicly traded company would make the brain-dead decision to locate their business in Israeli Occupied Territory. Why put your business in a place that is one of the most unstable places on the planet? It's redarded.
Ad nauseum, yes.