web analytics
December 22, 2014 / 30 Kislev, 5775
 
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘british’

Searching a Greek Priest for Arms

Sunday, July 15th, 2012

The 1920 Jerusalem riots took place under British Mandate of Palestine on April 4–7, 1920 in and around the Old City of Jerusalem.

The events coincided with and are named after the Muslim Nabi Musa festival and followed rising tensions in Arab-Jewish relations over Zionist immigration. Concurrently, there were Arab attacks on Jewish settlements in the Galilee.

Speeches by Arab religious leaders during the festival led to an outbreak of violent assaults on the city’s Jews. Five Jews and four Arabs were killed and several hundreds were wounded.

Sheikhs of 82 villages around the city and in Jaffa, claiming to represent 70% of the Arab population, issued a document protesting the violence against the Jews.

The Palin Court of Inquiry sent to the region in May 1920 by the British authorities placed the blame for the riots on the Zionists, “whose impatience to achieve their ultimate goal and indiscretion are largely responsible for this unhappy state of feeling.”

The document was never published.

Jewish Groups Sharply Condemn Church of England’s Endorsement of Anti-Israel Program

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

The main representative body of British Jewry lambasted the Church of England’s General Synod for endorsing an “inflammatory and partisan” anti-Israel program “at the expense of its interfaith relations.”

The Synod on Monday overwhelmingly passed a motion to support “the vital work” of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). The program brings church volunteers to “the West Bank to experience life under occupation” and “monitor and report human rights abuses” for a period of three to four months. As part of the program, participants are encouraged to lobby on behalf of the Palestinian cause upon their return.

Vivian Wineman, President of The Board of Deputies of British Jews, released a sharply worded statement on Tuesday condemning the Church of England’s move: “Justifying its decision using the views of marginal groups in Israel and the UK, the Synod has ridden rough shod over the very real and legitimate concerns of the UK Jewish community, showing a complete disregard for the importance of Anglican-Jewish relations.

“Unsurprisingly its graduates return with simplistic and radical perspectives, giving talks against Israel which do nothing to promote an understanding of the situation in the Middle East, much less promote a peaceful and viable solution to its problems. Members of Jewish communities across the country have suffered harassment and abuse at EAPPI meetings and yet Synod has completely dismissed their experiences.”

Wineman went on to deride the Church for its sanctimony and expressed concern for the latent anti-Semitism that was exposed in the run-up to the vote, saying: “The Jewish community does not need lessons from the Anglican Church in justice and peace, themes which originated in our tradition. Moreover, to hear the debate at Synod littered with references to ‘powerful lobbies’, the money expended by the Jewish community, ‘Jewish sounding names’ and the actions of the community ‘bringing shame on the memory of victims of the Holocaust’, is deeply offensive and raises serious questions about the motivation of those behind this motion.”

A statement on the website of the Israeli embassy in the UK said: “We are deeply disappointed that General Synod has endorsed the work of a highly partisan organisation. Christians face rising persecution across the region and yet, by supporting this group, the Church of England has chosen to amplify one-sided voices and to single out Israel – the only country where Christian rights are enshrined and the Christian population is growing.

“We share the concerns of all those within the Church of England who opposed this resolution as being misguided and undermining hopes for genuine understanding and reconciliation.”

This is not the Church of England’s first foray into anti-Israel initiatives, with a high-profile vote in February 2006 that resolved to disinvest from companies whose products are used by the Israeli government in Judea and Samaria.

JTA contributed to this report

Why Boycotts on Products from Judea and Samaria are Counterproductive

Monday, April 30th, 2012

Recent reports of a major British supermarket chain tightening its boycott on products from Israeli companies and businesses beyond the Green Line has again raised the question about the effectiveness of such boycotts. The questions should not be how effective they are, but rather who is affected by them. The answer is that those harmed by boycotts on Israeli products from Judea and Samaria are first and foremost the Palestinians themselves.

There are fourteen industrial centers dispersed throughout Judea and Samaria, which include some eight hundred factories and businesses. Seventeen thousand employees work at these centers, eleven thousand of them Palestinians. According to data presented by the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics, the employees earn two to three times more than the average pay earned by the Palestinian population, and receive – as prescribed by Israeli law – full social benefits. Based on the Arab familial structure in the region that is comprised of Hamulot, large families, it is estimated that these workers support over 100,000 people who are dependent on them.

A secondary source of livelihood has developed around these centers in the form of the provision of transportation for the employees, haulage of product and materials, services and equipment suppliers, so an even larger segment of the local population makes a living through Israeli entrepreneurship in this region.

The Palestinian Authority has recently encountered a severe financial crisis, which intensifies the Palestinian need for these workplaces in the settlements.

Firas Raad, representative of The Quartet, has stated that it’s a fact that economical cooperation is good for both sides. Israel provides a large and strong economy, financial and technical knowledge, transit capabilities and contacts with outer markets, and the Palestinians offer a quality and comparably cheap workforce.

Therefore, boycotting Israeli products from the settlements essentially harms Palestinian livelihood. If these factories are shut down, most Israeli workers will find another source of employment, as opposed to the Palestinians who will have no source of income. Such an example occurred recently when a factory from the Barkan industrial park was moved within the Green Line. The Jewish workers were able to keep their jobs, as opposed to the ninety Arab workers from the nearby villages who lost their jobs because they did not receive the proper work permits.

It is sufficient to mention the disengagement from Gaza, which resulted in the destruction of the many fields, green houses and factories that provided a source of employment for the local population. These workplaces were shut down after the disengagement, leaving many Arabs, who were former employees, behind with no source of income.

All these facts stand in stark contrast to claims of usury and disinheritance of the Palestinians that are lobbed against the Settlers.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/why-boycotts-on-products-from-judea-and-samaria-are-counterproductive/2012/04/30/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: