babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » activism   » ACJC restricts participation at conference

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: ACJC restricts participation at conference
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 19 January 2008 06:48 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
It seems the ACJC whines nicely about not being permitted to join CJC. Yet at least they were allowed to attend the CJC plenary.

ACJC will be holding its conference at the end of March and wow what a surprise, attendance is restricted to those that they deem are appropriate. Gotta love it!!

quote:
Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians

Alliance de Canadien/nes juif/ves concerné/es

A C J C

22 Boyce Avenue

Ottawa, Ontario K2B 6H9

Jewish.conference@...

Dear ACJC member,

As you know, the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians is holding a conference in Toronto, March 28-30, 2008. We hope to build a strong, coordinated Canadian Jewish umbrella group which can stand up for peace and justice and make it clear that groups like the CJC and CIJA do not speak in our name. And we hope you personally will come and participate actively.

Why do we need to build an umbrella group to represent progressive Canadian Jews? Because we need to work together to:

· Move Canada’s foreign policy to promote the rights of Palestinians, to pressure Israel to end the occupation and the siege of Gaza, to recognize the democratically elected Palestinian government, and to resume aid to Palestinian civilians who are in such desperate need;

· Challenge Islamophobic stereotypes and policies here in Canada;

· Promote civil liberties and human rights of Muslims and Arabs here in Canada and around the world;

· Prevent a U.S. or Israeli war against Iran, and end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are more than 20 progressive Jewish groups in Canada that actively oppose Israel’s unjust policies. Many of us mobilized against Israel’s assault on Lebanon and in support of the United Church’s divestment motion (which passed in the face of strong opposition from the Canadian Jewish Congress). But working separately in small groups, progressive Canadian Jews have been marginalized and silenced by establishment groups as well as by the media. As a result, groups like Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) and the Canadian Council of Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA) get away with claiming to represent all Canadian Jews and attacking any criticism of Israel by non-Jewish groups as anti-Semitic.

WHY IS THIS CONFERENCE DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHER CONFERENCES?

· At other conferences, anyone can attend. At this conference, only people already active in promoting peace and justice in Israel/Palestine are being invited.

· At other conferences, people passively listen to experts. At this conference, WE will be the experts, sharing our knowledge and ideas, planning actions and taking steps to build a united, effective umbrella group that opposes the occupation and promotes our shared values. To that end, the entire conference will be participatory and democratic.

· At other conferences, the focus is on education or entertainment. At this conference, the focus will be on strategic planning to create effective campaigns and ensure our ability to play an important role in addressing these all-important issues.

An initial agenda for the conference is attached. Please look it over and let me know if you have any suggestions to improve it or make it work better for you.



From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 January 2008 07:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The ACJC doesn't claim to speak for all Jews in Canada. That's the difference.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 19 January 2008 07:44 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
I get it, acjc gets to discriminate against those "concerbed Jews" who in their non-biased opinion do not measure up to the level of concern necessary to belong.

And this is ok? You cannot mean it?


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 19 January 2008 08:24 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, look who's starting a thread on matters CJC/ACJC. Do we get to call this obsessive? Or is that term reserved for those who promote peace and justice.

And Michelle has nailed it. I doubt a planning conference of Canadian Council of Israel and Jewish Advocacy would be open to all comers. The CJC, on the other hand, is supposed to be an umbrella group.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 19 January 2008 08:51 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
It seems the ACJC whines nicely about not being permitted to join CJC. Yet at least they were allowed to attend the CJC plenary.

ACJC will be holding its conference at the end of March and wow what a surprise, attendance is restricted to those that they deem are appropriate. Gotta love it!!


Does this mean CJC wishes to affiliate with ACJC or that Ohara wishes to join? When can ACJC expect your application?

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 19 January 2008 11:39 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
LOL How does NEVER sound.....and great diversion folks....acjc can clearly discriminate cjc can't. I understand it . What I can't understand is why you can't live with it
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 19 January 2008 12:03 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
As far as I'm concerened ACJC has every right to decide exactly who it wishes to accept into its private club.

It is totally their business.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 19 January 2008 12:03 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do you not get about the CJC representing itself as the 'voice' of Jewish Canadians, but yet is excluding the voices they say they represent?

What do you not get about the fact that the ACJC is not inclusive to those who are NOT concerned?

Why should the ACJC include those who are not concerned, they do not claim to represent the voices of canadian Jews?

This is not a difficult concept ohara.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 19 January 2008 12:24 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ohara only gets one concept, unfortunately.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
eibie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6247

posted 19 January 2008 12:59 PM      Profile for eibie   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The ACJC should thank ohara for her vote of support in the conception of their cross-Canada organization being equal in stature and legitimacy and voice, in the Jewish community of Canada to that of the CJC. Now, perhaps there can be an honest exchange of views rather than consorship and threats of physical expulsion on the floor of the Plenary.

What about Barak declaring that the crossings into Gaza are closed. Closed to food, medicine etc.?


From: Montréal | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 19 January 2008 03:05 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
LOL How does NEVER sound.....and great diversion folks....acjc can clearly discriminate cjc can't. I understand it . What I can't understand is why you can't live with it

So why do you want to attend a conference run by an organization you "NEVER" intend to join?


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 19 January 2008 03:46 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What do you not get about the fact that the ACJC is not inclusive to those who are NOT concerned?
and who defines what "concerned" is?

AKA, who said I ever wanted to join their conference? Obviously I'm just not the right kind of "concerned" Jew they are looking for.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 19 January 2008 05:02 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
and who defines what "concerned" is?

Again, your despicable self lowers to the level of a common ass. You made this thread to prove a point and you know what ohara? The only point you prove is that you're a right wing, pathetic person who can't stand to see peace in the middle east. In fact, you apparently can't stand it to the point where you would NEVER join an organization that supports peace between Muslims and Jews.

Why you are on a progressive site is beyond me. Crawl back into your hole ohara. You lost this one you creep.

And yes, I realize this is a personal attack but you know what? You deserve it, even if it means I lose posting privileges. It's about time someone called you on your hypocritical ways.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 19 January 2008 05:06 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
and who defines what "concerned" is?

AKA, who said I ever wanted to join their conference?


If you don't want to go why are you upset at not being allowed to attend?

quote:

Obviously I'm just not the right kind of "concerned" Jew they are looking for.

Ah but there's hope. All you have to do is start caring for the human rights of all people who live in Israel and Palestine, support the dismantling of illegal settlements in the West Bank and oppose the occupation. If you're willing to do these things then you would be the right sort of "concerned" person.

But ohara, given that this is a conference of people opposed to the occupation I fail to understand why those who favour the occupation should be invited. Now, if ACJC claimed to be the "Jewish community's official voice on public affairs" you would be correct, there should be no exclusion. But as ACJC is an umbrella group of those opposed to the occupation then I (and evidently everyone else here) fail to see your point.

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 19 January 2008 05:22 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
eibie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6247

posted 19 January 2008 07:42 PM      Profile for eibie   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If ohara wants a definition for the term "concerned" then the Concerned B'nai Brith caucus who were just expelled could serve one up. The issue there was something about a rigged election. Sounds like the CJC. Could it be that the Likudniks are into setting up a dictatorship by picking up Jewish communal organizations?
From: Montréal | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 January 2008 09:05 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ohara opened this thread to say "nyah nyah" to the ACJC. He got it wrong. Unsurprisingly. Maybe we should move on to a more substantive topic. Like: what is the ACJC and likeminded groups up to these days? And is it possible to be Jewish and actually not talk about Israel? There is really so much else for Canadian Jews to be concerned about without constantly having to publicly disassociate itself from this horrendous country which lyingly speaks in our name. Just one person's opinion here.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 20 January 2008 05:53 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But ohara, given that this is a conference of people opposed to the occupation I fail to understand why those who favour the occupation should be invited. Now, if ACJC claimed to be the "Jewish community's official voice on public affairs" you would be correct, there should be no exclusion. But as ACJC is an umbrella group of those opposed to the occupation then I (and evidently everyone else here) fail to see your point.

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


Hmm I see, OK then by this definition, if he were Jewish, George Bush would be welcome as would many in groups like cjc who want an end to the occupation. Seems as well I recall former PM Sharon also calling for an end to the occupation. He too would be a welcome "expert" at the acjc conference had he been able to do so.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 20 January 2008 05:58 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:

Again, your despicable self lowers to the level of a common ass. You made this thread to prove a point and you know what ohara? The only point you prove is that you're a right wing, pathetic person who can't stand to see peace in the middle east. In fact, you apparently can't stand it to the point where you would NEVER join an organization that supports peace between Muslims and Jews.

Why you are on a progressive site is beyond me. Crawl back into your hole ohara. You lost this one you creep.

And yes, I realize this is a personal attack but you know what? You deserve it, even if it means I lose posting privileges. It's about time someone called you on your hypocritical ways.


Quite mature of you.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 20 January 2008 06:04 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 20 January 2008 07:13 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi eibie!

I think Mycroft's conditions are clear, and define who should be taking part in this conference:

quote:
Ah but there's hope. All you have to do is start caring for the human rights of all people who live in Israel and Palestine, support the dismantling of illegal settlements in the West Bank and oppose the occupation. If you're willing to do these things then you would be the right sort of "concerned" person.

Not that this definition does NOT exclude many Zionists, including the Gush Shalom people.

There is no point in a conference becoming a shouting match.

CJC is a very different matter as it is an umbrella group that claims to speak for and advocate on behalf of all people here of a given ethnic origin. (I remember similar goings-on at the National Congress of Italian-Canadians - there are many such groups where an elite with a given agenda claims to speak on behalf of an entire national-origin group and stifles descent).

As a member of the Jewish Public Library, I suppose I could have been considered part of CJC? (I'm not Jewish).

Jewish-origin friends of mine in France and Germany also face a lobby that claims to speak for the "community" while refusing any criticism of Israel. In both cases this became problematic for them as they wanted to take part in demonstrations against anti-semitic acts, but not in a demonstration led by Israeli flags and Israeli songs, (which also make it very hard to build the needed anti-racist anti-fascist solidarity).


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 09:14 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
Why the hell is a "Jewish" organization holding their conference over teh Sabbath?

I guess they're also ensuring that observant Jews won't be able to participate either.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 January 2008 09:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm. That IS a little odd. What's the reasoning behind that, Mycroft?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 20 January 2008 10:03 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
India Jones does indeed have a valid criticism. Eibie and I know some observant Jews who are most "concerned" as defined by the association. It is very hard to schedule things so that no religious sensibilities are offended - we once had to try to work around Passover, an important Muslim feast falling then that year, and BOTH Easters (many Christian Arabs are Orthodox, of course) when scheduling a Middle East conference, but they should make sure that deliberations at least don't fall on the Sabbath, if there is any way they can.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 20 January 2008 10:09 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

Hmm I see, OK then by this definition, if he were Jewish, George Bush would be welcome as would many in groups like cjc who want an end to the occupation. Seems as well I recall former PM Sharon also calling for an end to the occupation. He too would be a welcome "expert" at the acjc conference had he been able to do so.


Ah but you're forgetting about one key criteria - sincerity.

You are also forgetting that ending the occupation means withdrawing from ALL of the West Bank and Gaza, not just parts of it and dismantling ALL settlements, not just some. I am unaware of Sharon, the CJC or even George Bush favouring that. Indeed, Bush in his comments last week made it quite clear that he sees a need for adjustments to the border and believes that a number of settlements can be annexed by Israel - he is not calling for a withdrawal to the pre-1967 border. Neither is the CJC. Neither did Ariel Sharon.

Now ohara, if you wish to announce that you support the completely withdrawal of Israel from the entire West Bank to the Green Line and not one inch passed it I would be happy to hear this. I'd be even happier if you would do so using your real name.

Of course if you did you might have to look for another job. I doubt that the owners of that computer firm you've said here that you work for would be very accepting of that position.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 20 January 2008 10:15 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Why the hell is a "Jewish" organization holding their conference over teh Sabbath?

I guess they're also ensuring that observant Jews won't be able to participate either.


I believe this is being accommodated. My understanding is that no decisions are being made during the Sabbath, for instance. I'm aware of many observant Jewish groups that have "Shabbaton" conferences on Saturdays so clearly this can be done. There's no rule that says on Saturday you either have to be in synagogue or stay at home, not moving, not speaking and staring at a wall.

Indeed, I recall attending an American Zionist Federation conference once in Philadelphia in my misbegotton youth. It was a three day conference and things did not screech to a halt on Saturday. There were just certain things that were done in order to accommodate the observant (eg good acoustics or small room so that people didn't need to use microphones, no votes, no decisions etc).

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 10:29 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
That's good to hear, Mycroft.

You're right that there is nothing that says that you have to be in Synogogue all day on the Sabbath, but you should be there at elast for Shacaris services. If the conference is planning on holding one, that's great and I commend them. But there are many actions prohibited on the Sabbath that would include writing, for example. You also cannot drive or take public transit, which could make it difficult for some.

I wonder too if all the food served will be kosher.

If that's the case, great. I suppose my concern, and one of my pet peeves in general, is when Jews on any side of the issue invoke their Judaism as though it gives them some sort of moral authority in discussing an issue when their Judaism is, at best, secondary to who they are. If you support Israeli policy or oppose Israeli policy, that's fine. But for people who do not actually follow any of the tenets of Judaism to speak in the name of Judaism if they feel it somehow bolsters their cause, I find very distatesful.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 January 2008 10:55 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, but are Jews speaking on Israel necessarily speaking to or of Judaism? I am not Jewish, but I must say my opposition to the Occupation stands on its own; I have great respect for both Judaism and the secular contributions of Jewish people both and observant and non.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 10:58 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Okay, but are Jews speaking on Israel necessarily speaking to or of Judaism? I am not Jewish, but I must say my opposition to the Occupation stands on its own; I have great respect for both Judaism and the secular contributions of Jewish people both and observant and non.

Yeah, Coyote, that sort of goes to my point. If they're opposition to the occupation stands on its own, I don't see why it's necessary for them to make it explicit that they're a Jewish group. Just be "Citizens Against the Occupation" or something like that.

I don't disagree with most of the opinions of the group but it seems like tey're using their "Jewishness" when it's convenient to them and avoiding it when it's not.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 20 January 2008 11:05 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here I can't agree, because "Jewishness" is also cultural and many non-observant or atheist people define themselves as Jews - or more significantly, are or have been thusly defined by others.

Often strictly kosher (or strictly halal, or strictly vegetarian etc) people bring their own food to events, and obviously not all Jewish people are remotely interested in attending Sabbath worship.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 20 January 2008 11:06 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 11:09 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:

Often strictly kosher (or strictly halal, or strictly vegetarian etc) people bring their own food to events, and obviously not all Jewish people are remotely interested in attending Sabbath worship.

I know that and I'm very used to having to bring my own food to events or to be unable to participate in certain events because they're scheduled on the Sabbath or Jewish holidays. The difference here is that this is a "Jewish" organization. I don't expect secular or Christian or Muslim organizations to work around kashrut and Shabbos but I think it's strange for an organization that bills itself as Jewish to do so. If a Muslim organization sponsored a conference in the middle of Ramadan and served a hearty lunch (when they're supposed to be fasting) of pork chops and beer (which are not allowed), I'd find that odd as well.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 20 January 2008 11:11 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:

Yeah, Coyote, that sort of goes to my point. If they're opposition to the occupation stands on its own, I don't see why it's necessary for them to make it explicit that they're a Jewish group. Just be "Citizens Against the Occupation" or something like that.

I don't disagree with most of the opinions of the group but it seems like tey're using their "Jewishness" when it's convenient to them and avoiding it when it's not.


It's important to make it known that there are Jews who oppose the occupation. Indeed, until recently, many individual Jews were simply involved in broader groups of "citizens" and this did nothing to challenge the notion within or outside of the Jewish community that Jews are a monolith who are united on their views of Israel. It's important for everyone, Jews, Palestinians, people who are neither to know that yes there are Jews, a growing number, who are critical of Israel's policies. It's not a matter of "convenience", IJ - I hope you recognize that it's actually quite a difficult thing for a lot of people to do.

One reason why its crucial for Jews to express their opposition is that too many leaders in the Jewish community have implied and dismissed criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic (or "the New antisemitism"). This has become more difficult in the past year as a number of Jews have become outspoken in the media in their opposition to Israel's policies. Indeed, where references to the "New Antisemitism" were increasingly frequent in the media until just over a year ago the use of the phrase has all but stopped in the past year. I don't think this is unconnected to the higher profile Jewish dissenters have received of late and this makes it much, much harder for the Allan Dershowitzes and the CJCs to silence criticism of Israel and dismiss it as the purview of Jew-haters and extremists. I think this is why groups like the CJC and the JDL hate ACJC so much - the mere existence of the group discredits a lot of the the best propaganda lines thrown out by people like Bernie Farber, Meir Weinstein and Frank Dimant.

BTW, back in the 80s there was a well known group called "Jews Against Apartheid" which opposed white minority rule in South Africa. Do you think this was wrong and that they should have just been "Citizens Against Apartheid"?

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 11:13 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
Mycroft, like I said, I think it's a good cause and I'm not going to criticize them for that. I'm a Jew, myself, who has a lot of problems with certain policies of the Israeli government.

It jsut seems to me like there are a lot of people (and I don't know enough about this group to be able to say for sure but scheduling this on the Sabbath is a tip-off) who ahve no real interest in being Jewish but are very willing to invoke their Jewish background when it's helpful to do so. And in this case, I think it IS helpful to them - they can say basically "The policies are so bad that EVEN ALL OF US JEWS are agaisnt them." Except they're not Jews in any meaningful sense. If you don't want to be Jewish when it's inconveneint - liek giving up foods or observing the Sabbath - I don't like it when you suddenly identify as Jewish to make a political point.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 January 2008 11:14 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But, with respect, Muslim and Christian are directly comparable in that both are defined by certain beliefs, and Capitalism is directly comparable to Socialism for the same reasons; but Judaism is not synonymous with Jewishness. Put another way: one can be Jewish without necessarily believing in Judaism.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 20 January 2008 11:19 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
If you don't want to be Jewish when it's inconveneint - liek giving up foods or observing the Sabbath

If that's your criteria for being Jewish then I suspect most of the CJC wouldn't qualify as Jewish (ohara certainly wouldn't since he posts on babble on the Sabbath) nor, indeed, would a single Prime Minister of Israel since the state's inception in 1948, the vast majority of that country's cabinet ministers, most of the IDF's generals, virtually all of the state's founders and virtually all of the leaders of the Zionist movement until very recently.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 20 January 2008 11:20 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, so you are smearing their Jewishness, basically saying they are NOT really Jews, and stating that only those who are strict followers of the faith, have a right to call themselves Jews.

Well, I guess that leaves out any but the strict findamentalists then, eh?!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 January 2008 11:34 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see no reason why this group can't exclude whoever it wants from its meetings.

Presumably, it is a minority among Jewish Canadians, and thus would be vulnerable to hostile takeover by pro-Israel groups which could swamp their meetings.

Probably the members of this group are more secularly Jewish than pro-Israel groups are, but I doubt that that disentitles them from calling themselves Jewish.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 11:52 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Oh, so you are smearing their Jewishness, basically saying they are NOT really Jews, and stating that only those who are strict followers of the faith, have a right to call themselves Jews.

Well, I guess that leaves out any but the strict findamentalists then, eh?!


First, I don't equate respect for the most basic tenets of Judaism with "strict fundamentalism".

Second, my point was that their Jewishness is completely irrelevant to the political point they are making so I don't see what their goal is in drawing attention to the fact that they are Jews, except that it's politically convenient.

As to whether they are "really Jews" - technically, I'm sure that most are if you use the most basic definition. But like I said before and would ask you now - if a Muslim group that officially called themselves a Muslim group and invoked their Muslim identity in advancing a political agenda, would you not find it odd if tehy were to sponsor an event during Ramadan at which they served a lunch of beer and pork? Is it not somewhat contradictory to at once invoke a Muslim identity while at the same time violating the most basic tenets of Islam?


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 11:55 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

If that's your criteria for being Jewish then I suspect most of the CJC wouldn't qualify as Jewish (ohara certainly wouldn't since he posts on babble on the Sabbath) nor, indeed, would a single Prime Minister of Israel since the state's inception in 1948, the vast majority of that country's cabinet ministers, most of the IDF's generals, virtually all of the state's founders and virtually all of the leaders of the Zionist movement until very recently.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


Very good point, Mycroft. I would suspect that many within the CJC are NOT observant Jews, though I would hope (and suspect) that they would not openly violate the tenets of Judaism at their events.

You're very right about the leadership in Israel. ISrael was not conceived as a "Jewish state" in the religious sense, but in the ethnic sense. And I know that many people in Canada also identify as ethnically Jewish while not being even remotely religious. But if such is the case, their ethnic identity is completely irrelevant to their political advocacy, just as if someone were to be critical of Italian policies, they would ahve no greater credibility than anyone else because their ancestors emigrated from Italy a century earlier.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 20 January 2008 12:09 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
I believe what Indiana Jones may mean is that a "Jewish" identified group ought to be open to all Jews from observant to secular. And of course the restrictions on ideology as expressed by acjc.

So then rules of kashruth and sabbath observance ought to be followed.

And in my view the hypocricy here is that acjc can without censure limit membership by virtue of how they define themseleves and cjc cannot.

Personally I have no problem with acjc limiting itself to "14 toed Jews with 29 freckles who believe the occupation must end". But you cannot expect less from cjc. With the expectation here Jews for Jesus could belong to cjc. It has requirements (far less limiting in my view than acjc) and I have no problem with those either.

Time for everybody to get a life and not force personal views on others. That would go for you too ohara.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 January 2008 12:15 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:

First, I don't equate respect for the most basic tenets of Judaism with "strict fundamentalism".


Agreed.

quote:

Second, my point was that their Jewishness is completely irrelevant to the political point they are making so I don't see what their goal is in drawing attention to the fact that they are Jews, except that it's politically convenient.
No. Observant or not, they are Jewish and have every right to identify as such, and locate their politics within that space.

quote:
But like I said before and would ask you now - if a Muslim group that officially called themselves a Muslim group and invoked their Muslim identity in advancing a political agenda, would you not find it odd if tehy were to sponsor an event during Ramadan at which they served a lunch of beer and pork? Is it not somewhat contradictory to at once invoke a Muslim identity while at the same time violating the most basic tenets of Islam?
A more precise equation would be an Arab group, which is liekly to include many moslems but cannot be said to be identified by that factor.

Again, one can be Jewish without adhering to Judasim. That needs to be respected.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 20 January 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is untrue. The difference is the fact of lethal antisemitism and the fact that first Czarist pogroms and then the Holocaust did not only target obervant Jews.

I also know atheist Jews in Argentina who were subjected to extra doses of torture and humiliation as Jews, although they were not remotely religious or observant.

And the Zionists seize upon that well-known history to slander critics of Israel as "anti-semites" or "self-hating-Jews".

There are minority Muslims and minority Catholics who might call themselves such in opposition to bigotry, but still drink alcohol or use contraception ans spit on the bloody pope.

And someone of Italian descent who is not a believing Catholic and cringes at a lot of hokey Italo-North-American culture could well oppose smears against Italian people or Italian emigrant communities.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 January 2008 12:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure, when the ACJC pretends to speak for all Canadian Jews, then they can be criticized for not letting in certain viewpoints.

I don't think people here were defining the problem as the CJC not letting in non-zionist groups. I think the problem they had was that the CJC is representing itself as the voice of Canadian Jews while excluding some of them.

The ACJC makes no such claim.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 12:26 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
Very good point, Michelle.

There is no organization in thw world which can claim to be "the voice" of all Jews. We're a pretty diverse lot. We've all heard the jokes: two Jews, three opinions. The Jew who gets stranded on a desert Island for many years and builds two synogogues - one that he prays in, one that he'll never set foot in as long as he lives. Or the Israeli who gets stranded alone on a desert Island and whithin a year has started up 10 political parties and a dozen newspapers.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 January 2008 12:33 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, lagatta, were you disagreeing with me? If so, in what way? I think I've missed something here.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
just one of the concerned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14896

posted 20 January 2008 12:34 PM      Profile for just one of the concerned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:

Very good point, Mycroft. I would suspect that many within the CJC are NOT observant Jews, though I would hope (and suspect) that they would not openly violate the tenets of Judaism at their events.


Ok. I am not new here. I've tried to check this site on a regular basis to stay up to date with the events that may be up, but this thread has made me angrier than anything I've ever read and so i felt I had to join.

Indiana Jones, you are making extremely anti-semitic statements.
I'm not saying that you are anti-semitic, but you need to understand that being Jewish is a religious identification, a ethnic and racial identification and a cultural identification, and it is just an old anti-semitic trope to try and lump judaism into only one of those boxes. I hope you know that the cossacks, fascists, and american lynchmobs did not ever check whether the jews they hunted were keeping kosher, and so it makes no difference.


ohara: the circumstances under which the ACJC was rejected by the CJC were a joke and you know it.

Plenty of organizations hold internal meetings.
The ACJC must hold closed door meetings because it's activities are being hounded by the power-holders in this jewish community and because its members' reputations are being threatened on a daily basis. Your thread here is a teeny attempt to do the same.


From: in the cold outside of the cjc | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 20 January 2008 12:38 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edited to add:

No, coyote, I was agreeing with you. I was disagreeing with Indiana Jones, who was referring to people of Italian descent criticising the Italian government.

(The really dreadful and embarrassing testa di cazzo, il stronzone Berlusconi, is not in power any more. But one can still criticise the centre-left Prodi government for being lily-livered about standing up for equal marriage for LGBT people).

Yes, the Canada-Israel committee and the Québec-Israel committee have every right to exist. And to organise conferences I wouldn't try to attend.

I know the chairman of the latter. Like Dr Irving Abella, he used to be very progressive. Interestingly, he isn't Jewish: he is of Italian origin (from a Catholic family).

The problem is umbrella groups pretending to speak for all members of a group while excluding some of them.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 January 2008 12:56 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lagatta: Got it. Now I understand.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 January 2008 01:02 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Why the hell is a "Jewish" organization holding their conference over teh Sabbath?

I guess they're also ensuring that observant Jews won't be able to participate either.


There is no Jewish law against attending a conference on the Sabbath.

That's for your information also, Michelle, as well as lagatta.

I'm talking about the (maybe) 5% of Jews in North America who are "shomer Shabbat". They can attend any conference they want. They just can't take notes, speak in a microphone, or drive there. They can do what I used to do when I observed Shabbat as a young teen - walk. Or, ask for the conference to be held on another day. Or, stay home.

The idea of accommodating Sabbath observers is a bit ridiculous, given that they are about as common in everyday work, social or political circles as burka-wearers. I.e.: NOT.

I have already had occasion to correct Indiana Jones on his misrepresentation of Jewish law about Sabbath (such as his amusing concoction that religious Jews are not allowed to be photographed on Shabbat). Please refrain from taking any of his pronouncements at face value. He does not speak for the Jewish people, only for himself - just as I do.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 20 January 2008 01:32 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Except they're not Jews in any meaningful sense.

By your definition the vast majority of Canadian Jews aren't Jews in any meaningful sense.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 01:38 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
Unionist, I made no attempt to speak for all Jews and am glad that you are not either.

And, yes, I know that many Jews today do not observe the laws of Shabbos or kashrus. Though, you are quite wrong about it being 5%. I'm a pollster and have done studies on this and while I don't have the numbers in front of me, can tell you that it's significantly higher. I do observe these laws but don't expect to be accomated at most events that I attend. If I wanted to attend an event by, for example, an environmental organization, i would not expect them to organize it around the practices of religious Jews (or Muslims, Sikh, Hindus, etc.). But when a JEWISH organization holds an event, I certainly would hope that it doesn't openly oppose basic tenets of Jewish belief and law.

My office is organizing dinner next week. I keep kosher. A colleague of mine is Muslim and only eats Halal. I thought it was very nice that our company chose to accomodate us by using a caterer that will serve a meal we can both eat. But I do not expect this. But when a JEWISH organization holds an event, I do. And I'm sure that if my colleague went to an event billed as a MUSLIM event, it would not flagrantly violate basic tenets of Islam.

Again, if a Muslim organization held an event during ramadan during which they served a lunch of beer and pork, I think most Muslims - not jsut strictly observant Muslims, but those who respect their religious traditions - would find that odd, at the very least and not particularly welcoming to many members of the community. If a meeting of the Toronto Vegetarian Association served veal at their event, I'd find that odd as well.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 01:43 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

They just can't take notes, speak in a microphone, or drive there. They can do what I used to do when I observed Shabbat as a young teen - walk. Or, ask for the conference to be held on another day. Or, stay home.

Given the location, it will be very difficult for many people to walk there. But that's not the problem. The problem is the message that it sends. There are all sorts of things we can't do as Jews. That's part of life and I have come to expect it and live my life around it. But I don't expect it to come from other Jews. When the events is being organized by an organization that bills itself as Jewish, it simply strikes me as odd that they would organize it in such a way as to openly violate Jewish law.

Exactly. We can "stay home". Which is probably the most reasonable option for msot Orthodox Jews. Which seems to send us the message that we are not welcome there.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 20 January 2008 01:46 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Given the location, it will be very difficult for many people to walk there.

Not really, there are quite a number of affordable hotel rooms within walking distance. If the conference were in Mississauga, ok, but downtown Toronto is walkable.

quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
But when a JEWISH organization holds an event, I certainly would hope that it doesn't openly oppose basic tenets of Jewish belief and law.

quote:
Again, if a Muslim organization held an event during ramadan during which they served a lunch of beer and pork, I think most Muslims - not jsut strictly observant Muslims, but those who respect their religious traditions - would find that odd,

This is a straw dog argument. ACJC is certainly not planning to serve pork chops at the conference.

And as I said, it is not unusual for Jewish groups to have a multiday conference in which one day is on a Saturday as observant Jews are not banned from attending a conference on the sabbath. Accommodations need to be made but as most people cannot take a Monday off to attend a Saturday night to Monday night conference only very well funded groups can afford to avoid having a 3 day event that excludes Saturday.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 20 January 2008 01:48 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It may be somewhat higher than 5% but it can't be that high. I've read that of all ethno-religious communities Jews have just about the lowest level of weekly attendance at religious services, compared to that of the general population, in the 10-15% range I think. And some of these regular attenders would be Conservative and Reform Jews so when you subtract them out you can't have more than 10% at most that could be called orthodox.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 January 2008 01:55 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And Indiana Jones is still insisting on his proposition that an Jewish person is de facto an adherent of Judaism, which is just not the case.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 20 January 2008 01:57 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you are really interested in attending, just write or phone the association to voice your concerns. I'm sure they will bend over backwards to ensure strictly Kosher options are available.

You can walk there if you stay somewhere nearby the day before.

At Alternatives, we have faced such things many times - and obviously we did not want to exclude observant Jews or Muslims!

But it is hard for non-Orthodox places to cater to the most observant - you know that. Sure, there would be no pork, seafood or mixing milk and flesh, but people who keep Glatt Kosher have far stricter requirements (that actually discourage eating, hence socialising, with the less-Orthodox or non-Jews).

Idem strict Muslims who will not attend an event where beer or wine is served. It is one thing to make sure there is no beer or wine in the preparation of foods, and that non-alcoholic beverages are available, quite another for a particular religious observance to dictate what people can put in their mouths.

"Reasonable Accomodation" has been used here - in Québec - recently by all kinds of reactionaries, but at the same time as a feminist and socialist I refuse to be pushed around by the dictates of ANY strict religious belief.

I could get all Godwin's lawish on you and advance that the Nazis didn't really kill so many millions of Jews, because many were secular or non-observant. (And just as humilited, tortured and murdered). Beyond that, we know that "Judaity", as the French say, is not the same as "Judaism" (the religion).


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 02:07 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
It may be somewhat higher than 5% but it can't be that high. I've read that of all ethno-religious communities Jews have just about the lowest level of weekly attendance at religious services, compared to that of the general population, in the 10-15% range I think. And some of these regular attenders would be Conservative and Reform Jews so when you subtract them out you can't have more than 10% at most that could be called orthodox.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]


According to the survey found here: http://www.feduja.org/jewishtoronto/census/2001_Census_Jewish_Community.pdf

8.3% of Jews in Toronto attend services once per week,
5.1% attend MORE than once per week.
5.8% attend several times per month.
4.5% attend at least once a month.
Among Orthodox Jews, however, 77% attend at least once a week. (THe reason it's not higher, I presume is that many women would not be attending).
22.4% describe their dietary habits as "strictly kosher" at home while around 11% are strictly kosher outside of home as well.

These numbers are from 2001 and are based on Toronto.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 02:11 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:

Idem strict Muslims who will not attend an event where beer or wine is served. It is one thing to make sure there is no beer or wine in the preparation of foods, and that non-alcoholic beverages are available, quite another for a particular religious observance to dictate what people can put in their mouths.


I agree. And when I have Muslim friends over, I do my best to accomodate them but recognize that there are just times when I won't be able to do that. Sometimes, for example, I want to hav an event that includes serving alcohol. And none of my Muslim friends ahve ever suggested that I change it to accomodate them. But tehy don't expect me to because I'm not even Muslim, let alone an organization that advertises myself as Muslim. If a Muslim community organization held an event at which alcohol was served, I imagine that many Muslims would feel excluded from that.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 20 January 2008 02:12 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is the response I've gotten from the ACJC person in charge of co-ordinating the conference:

quote:
Because most people cannot afford to take three weekdays off work, we had to schedule the conference over a weekend (that is during Shabbat). However, we are doing our best to make the ACJC conference fully accessible to observant Jews

At least one Orthodox, observant Jew plans to come, and there may well be other Jews who observe kashrut and shabbat. As well several observant Muslims will also be attending. To assure accessibility for them, we are planning to have vegetarian food or kosher/halal food only. There is an orthodox shul near Cecil street and someone has offered to billet the one orthodox Jewish participant so far, easy walking distance of the conference. If other Jews register who won't use cars or public transit on shabbat, it is possible that he can also accomodate them. As well, the Courtyard Marriott is within walking distance.

Orthodox Jews would be welcome to come to the conference after Saturday morning services. And we invite them to submit their comments on the key issues being discussed before the conference begins, so that their perspectives will be addressed during shabbat. Because almost the entire programme will take place in small groups, there will be little need for anyone other than conveners to use microphones. There is also no need for specific individuals to take notes, since all the groups will have an assigned recorder and everyone will receive a summary of recommendations for discussion on Sunday.

We welcome other suggestions for improving access to observant Jews.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 20 January 2008 02:14 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
This is excellent news Mycroft. I was really impressed with the response and commend the organizers for it.
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 20 January 2008 02:28 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:

According to the survey found here: http://www.feduja.org/jewishtoronto/census/2001_Census_Jewish_Community.pdf

8.3% of Jews in Toronto attend services once per week,
5.1% attend MORE than once per week.
5.8% attend several times per month.
4.5% attend at least once a month.
Among Orthodox Jews, however, 77% attend at least once a week. (THe reason it's not higher, I presume is that many women would not be attending).
22.4% describe their dietary habits as "strictly kosher" at home while around 11% are strictly kosher outside of home as well.

These numbers are from 2001 and are based on Toronto.


So I wasn't all that off. Only 13 percent (in Toronto) attend synagogue weekly which is well below the Canadian general population in terms of attending religious services (which I believe is around 20-25%). 75% basically don't attend at all and 90% don't keep kosher outside the home so the majority aren't really "Jews in any meaningful sense," are they?

And does this survey include only people who say their religion is Jewish on the census or does it include ethnic Jews of no religion as well?

ETA: I guess this is a moot point though. ACJC is doing its best to accomodate Sabbath observant Jews. Certainly having religious Jews, fairly or not, gives the group more moral credibility though I don't know if so-called "Jewish leaders" could care less.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 20 January 2008 03:03 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
TAT TAT A TAT
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 20 January 2008 03:15 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Sure, when the ACJC pretends to speak for all Canadian Jews, then they can be criticized for not letting in certain viewpoints.

.



You mean in the same way the government of Canada speaks for Canadians. I'm guessing you did not vote conservative.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 20 January 2008 03:24 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The shill is deliberately not "getting" something very simple in order to continue repeating its propaganda line. A line which is clearly part of a concerted effort on the part of political opponents of the ACJC to delegitimise their conference. Fairness is the last thing on the shill's mind.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
just one of the concerned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14896

posted 20 January 2008 03:24 PM      Profile for just one of the concerned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

You mean in the same way the government of Canada speaks for Canadians. I'm guessing you did not vote conservative.

Is the CJC is the jewish government now?


From: in the cold outside of the cjc | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 January 2008 05:11 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by just one of the concerned:
... being Jewish is a religious identification, a ethnic and racial identification and a cultural identification, and it is just an old anti-semitic trope to try and lump judaism into only one of those boxes. I hope you know that the cossacks, fascists, and american lynchmobs did not ever check whether the jews they hunted were keeping kosher, and so it makes no difference.

Amen, well said. Usually those who question our "Jewishness" based on whether we follow some old superstition are the ones who came very late to religion. They're still oh so excited about their orthodoxy. They forget that "Jewish" is far more than that. I'm a Jewish atheist, and proud of it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 20 January 2008 06:04 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by just one of the concerned:

Is the CJC is the jewish government now?



Hardly, just an analogy...most people here seem intent on accepting the fact there can be organizations that limit there membership as long as it meets their expectations. I fully understand your wilfull blindness, honest I do.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 January 2008 06:10 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's like you work so very hard at missing the point. You're like Dwight from The Office.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: Coyote ]

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 20 January 2008 06:29 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Always liked Dwight. The point stares you right in the face.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 January 2008 06:32 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dude, he put his girlfriend's cat in a freezer.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 20 January 2008 07:17 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Until 2004, any Jewish person over the age of 18 was eligible to become a member of the CJC, and the CJC membership spanned the spectrum of social class and attitudes toward Zionism. To prevent membership by Jewish groups or individuals opposed to the Israeli Occupation, the CJC amended its constitution (By-law 66) in November, 2004 to limit membership to any Jew “who concurs with
or supports the aims and objectives of Canadian Jewish Congress,” and to give the National Executive “absolute discretion” to exclude
those deemed to be “opposed to the aims and objectives of Congress.”

The CJC refuses to publish these “aims and objectives.” This gives the CJC Executive the dictatorial power to decide who is Jewish
enough to be represented by the CJC. Unquestioning loyalty to Israel becomes the main criterion of “Jewishness”: Inasmuch as the CJC claims to represent all Jews, by rejecting those who have criticisms of Israel, they are treating them as “non-Jews.” So much for representing all Canadian Jews!


http://tinyurl.com/2dj9fp

Despite this change though, the CJC still claims to represent the Jewish community of Canada even though people who aren't sufficiently supportive of Israel aren't welcome. As noted above ACJC explicitly states that it is opposed to the occupation.

I imagine many progressives have left the CJC in disgust and it's not appealing to younger Jews who aren't as "Zionist" as their parents.

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]

[ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 21 January 2008 02:46 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Dude, he put his girlfriend's cat in a freezer.

Dude he's a comic character. You "like" comic characters for the quality of the actor's work. Its not real you know.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 21 January 2008 06:32 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you mean the character committed such an atrocious act, or the actor, in reality?

If so, he should never work again.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 21 January 2008 08:21 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

You mean in the same way the government of Canada speaks for Canadians. I'm guessing you did not vote conservative.

The government is supposed to represent all Canadians. This is why if you get in trouble abroad and end up in a prison in some dictatorship on trumped up charges the consular officials don't ask you how you voted before they intervene on your behalf. I can send you a "Canadian Governance" textbook if it helps.

As far as the CJC goes, if it didn't claim to be the "Jewish community's official voice on public affairs" then no one would be accusing it of claiming to speak on behalf of the Canadian Jewish community.

Perhaps, ohara, you should send the CJC a memo suggesting that they change their website so they no longer claim to be the "official voice" of the Jewish community but merely the voice of the small percentage of Canadian Jews who are CJC members? Once this change is made no one will be making demands that the CJC actually represent everyone in the Jewish community or that it allow all Canadian Jews to be members regardless of whether CJC leaders like their political opinions on Israel.

[ 21 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
just one of the concerned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14896

posted 21 January 2008 08:54 AM      Profile for just one of the concerned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well said. The CJC has two choices, it can either let us in, as activists, and let in the voices of Jews of Colour, and Jews below the poverty line. Or it can relinquish its ridiculous claim to being a official community voice.

The entire idea that Jews ever speak with one voice from a unified organization is inherently antisemitic in its origins anyway - a throwback to when Jews were targetted for their supposed "plotting and organizing" in centralized hirearchies or groups of elders - because the Church always assumed that Jews must have a hirearchy, a council and a pope just because Catholics do.
Except that the Jewish diaspora has always been decentralized. These hirearchies are fictional and have never existed outside of European fairy-tales.

[ 21 January 2008: Message edited by: just one of the concerned ]


From: in the cold outside of the cjc | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 January 2008 10:29 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

Perhaps, ohara, you should send the CJC a memo suggesting that they change their website so they no longer claim to be the "official voice" of the Jewish community but merely the voice of the small percentage of Canadian Jews who are CJC members? Once this change is made no one will be making demands that the CJC actually represent everyone in the Jewish community or that it allow all Canadian Jews to be members regardless of whether CJC leaders like their political opinions on Israel.

[ 21 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


Well mycroft this is where you lose perspective. Say what you will but from my vantage point cjc represents well more than a small percentage of its members. Since it is funded by the UJA across Canada and since it must be responsible to the vast number of Jews donating to the UJA it has a far greater responsibility.

I have been to cjc plenaries and there has been vibrant debate on many issues though again you should know that the issue of Israel is not fully a part of cjc's mandate that falls more properly with Israel-Canada committee.

So as far as can be said, cjc does represent the thousands and thousands of Jews who donate to uja. It may not speak for you and i do not agree with all their stands but its is pretty close to mainstream jewish thinking.

One thing though is absolutely certain, acjc, speaks only to its very small and limited membership. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And finally why must ohara send a memo to cjc. You seem pretty adept at this internet thing. You certainly know how to type. I know from past postings that you seem a little reluctant or afraid to contact cjc directly but emails are pretty unidimensional, perhaps you can send an email instead of getting others to do your work for you.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 21 January 2008 11:02 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm amazed that this debate has continued as long as it has without addressing the basic problem: the meaning of "all" and "some".

Ohara and Petsy, do you know the difference between "ALL" and "SOME"?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 January 2008 11:16 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps BL you can enlighten me
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 January 2008 11:37 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
lagatta: it was the character. And it is the character to whom I was comparing ohara; they're both funny for all the wrong reasons.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 January 2008 11:50 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
Coyote you are really being unfair, I mean if we wnated to compare posters here to tv characters well, that's a whole thread in itself.

For example, no disrespect intended, Unionist reminds me of Major Charles Winchester the Third, of MASH fame. The know-it-all.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 21 January 2008 11:56 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
Well mycroft this is where you lose perspective. Say what you will but from my vantage point cjc represents well more than a small percentage of its members.

I didn't say the CJC represented a small percentage of its members. I said a small percentage of Canadian Jews are CJC members.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 January 2008 12:02 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
I don't recall CJC handing out membership cards
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 21 January 2008 12:25 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

I didn't say the CJC represented a small percentage of its members. I said a small percentage of Canadian Jews are CJC members.


AKA I am just curious how many Canadian Jews are members of CJC?

Petsy said that UJA Federations make up the funding it is responsible to those who donate.

If their are 300,000 Jews in Canada how many donate to UJAs?

I think that is the only way to find out the membership.

The only organization that I am aware of that has membership cards is Bnai Brith.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 21 January 2008 12:25 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
Perhaps BL you can enlighten me

Not even I have that power.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 21 January 2008 12:43 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:

AKA I am just curious how many Canadian Jews are members of CJC?

Petsy said that UJA Federations make up the funding it is responsible to those who donate.

If their are 300,000 Jews in Canada how many donate to UJAs?

I think that is the only way to find out the membership.

The only organization that I am aware of that has membership cards is Bnai Brith.


JPJ asks some good questions. I'm curious as to how many members the CJC has as well. But as for donating the UJA it is also a charity and I suspect many if not most donors are giving donations for fairly apolitical reasons (i.e., helping Jews in poverty or FSU immigrants, etc.)

I don't think everyone who donates to the UJA for instance necessarily wants the provincial government to fund religious schools for instance and I wonder if the UJA (and perhaps the CJC as well) have lost support from those who were uncomfortable with its not-so-subtle campaigning for the provincial Tories last time (and certainly there wasn't as much support in the Jewish community for the Tories as school funding partisans had hoped).


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 January 2008 12:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

I didn't say the CJC represented a small percentage of its members. I said a small percentage of Canadian Jews are CJC members.


Whoops, you slipped up! Looks like they're here in force to jump on your error. Now we can talk for 50 posts about whether or not the CJC hands out membership cards.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 21 January 2008 12:53 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
LP this was not the first time CJC and UJA have supported this issue. Thier support goes back at least as far as the Shapero report in '84 and its release in '85.

For that reason I really don't think that many see this as a Tory support issue. Rather those who disagree with the funding of Jewish day schools are saying we have been against it for over 20 years.

In addition it is hard to know whether those who are in favour of the funding of day schools but against the Tory idea let their opinions be known etc.

Either way CJC was simply advocating a long held policy decision. at elast according to my parents who are long-time UJA supporters but against the Tory private school plan


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 21 January 2008 12:55 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Whoops, you slipped up! Looks like they're here in force to jump on your error. Now we can talk for 50 posts about whether or not the CJC hands out membership cards.

To be fair ACJC does not hand out membership cards one needs only to request membership in a yahoo group to join. To do that all you need is an email address.

I guess I could have 10 to 20 memberships depending on how many email addresses I have.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 January 2008 01:06 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
To get back on track, this ajcj conference sounds like it will be a real house on fire. After all what can be more exciting than a room full of people that agree with each other?
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 21 January 2008 01:06 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
I'm amazed that this debate has continued as long as it has without addressing the basic problem: the meaning of "all" and "some".

Ohara and Petsy, do you know the difference between "ALL" and "SOME"?


oh oh, let me guess please, a smigeon?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 21 January 2008 01:08 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Not even I have that power.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 January 2008 01:09 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:

For example, no disrespect intended, Unionist reminds me of Major Charles Winchester the Third, of MASH fame. The know-it-all.

I don't know-it-all. I only know-it-some. Don't you know the difference between all and some?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 21 January 2008 01:09 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Not even I have that power.

You have the power!!!!!!


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 21 January 2008 01:10 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
To get back on track, this ajcj conference sounds like it will be a real house on fire. After all what can be more exciting than a room full of people that agree with each other?
it's a pot, no it's a kettle, no it's a pot...

I guess members of the CJC should know this first hand, eh?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 21 January 2008 01:12 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
actually it would be more like a meeting of the Libs. Dion is bad. No Dion is bad.
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 January 2008 01:18 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I don't know-it-all. I only know-it-some. Don't you know the difference between all and some?



Clearly not as well as you Major!

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 21 January 2008 01:20 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This will be the 98th post. we are close to closing yet another thread in the ongoing saga of ACJC and CJC. The love affair that refuses to die.

One can only hope that one of these days these two wild and crazy kids will find a way to live together and bring forward children raised with the Torah, bar / bat mitzvah'ed and married under the Chuppa.

and only then will we be able to say as our ancesters have for centuries.

Next year in Jerusalem.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 January 2008 01:23 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
it's a pot, no it's a kettle, no it's a pot...

I guess members of the CJC should know this first hand, eh?



Again you betray your ignorance. Have you ever been to a cjc plenary? If so you would have heard many differences of opinion, strongly held with much passionate debate. Everything from poverty to elder care to anti-Semitism to social housing. From the left to the right. But you wouldn't know would you? You just make accusations with no foundation.

And jpj, I loved your last post.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 21 January 2008 01:47 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, so they do not exclude dissenting non-Zionist voices then?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 21 January 2008 01:49 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
LP this was not the first time CJC and UJA have supported this issue. Thier support goes back at least as far as the Shapero report in '84 and its release in '85.

For that reason I really don't think that many see this as a Tory support issue. Rather those who disagree with the funding of Jewish day schools are saying we have been against it for over 20 years.

In addition it is hard to know whether those who are in favour of the funding of day schools but against the Tory idea let their opinions be known etc.

Either way CJC was simply advocating a long held policy decision. at elast according to my parents who are long-time UJA supporters but against the Tory private school plan


It's true that the CJC/UJA may have been on board regarding school funding but it was only in the last election that it was such a major issue. A lot of people who may not have paid attention to the politics of the official Jewish community institutions may only have learned of it in the last election - or if not that, at least were willing to put that aside when it didn't look like there was any chance of such a move being implemented.

I'm sure there are plenty more people like your parents who support UJA but don't necessarily agree with all of its policy advocacy. But I imagine its intensive and high-profile lobbying in the last election made it appeal more "partisan" and thus turned off Liberals, New Democrats, Greens and others in the Jewish community. The same could possibly be said of the CJC losing credibility as a nonpartisan, "official voice," though CJC activists are obviously a much, much smaller proportion of the Jewish community than UJA donors (which in some ways is like a Jewish United Way).


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 21 January 2008 03:32 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I don't know-it-all. I only know-it-some. Don't you know the difference between all and some?


100 posts and counting... No sign of this, yet.

[ 21 January 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 January 2008 03:48 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Oh, so they do not exclude dissenting non-Zionist voices then?

You gotta love it when people just make up things. Sorry remind never said that.

[ 21 January 2008: Message edited by: Petsy ]


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 21 January 2008 03:54 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
For my part I will duck out with nthe firmly held belief that here if you are of the same mind, you can rarely do wrong even when you are wrong. ACJC discriminates and yes so does cjc. That they are permitted to do so no one cares less . That cjc is doing it somehow makes it more onerous becuse it is too mainstrem for Babble. I get it I really do.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 January 2008 03:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No you don't, or you would have acknowledged the reason that people are differentiating. It's because the CJC claims to be the voice of Canadian Jews. The ACJC only claims to speak for those Canadian Jews who are against the occupation.

But I don't expect you to get it. That's not what you're here for. We've all gotten your leaflet. Thanks.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 21 January 2008 04:22 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
What you don't get is that almost all Jewish Canadians strongly disagree with groups like acjc and on this matter feel much closer to cjc. You don't get it. You never will get it becuause you just don't accept it. That's fine. I can live with it.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 21 January 2008 04:37 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What you don't get is that almost all Jewish Canadians strongly disagree with groups like acjc and on this matter feel much closer to cjc. You don't get it. You never will get it becuause you just don't accept it. That's fine. I can live with it.

Bullshit ohara. Total bullshit. You are your own worst enemy and you have it backwards, unless somewhere you can point to me stats that say most Jews are pro-occupation. Go ahead ohara, after all, you can live with that can't you? You can easily live with the destruction of the Palestinian people. But I think many many Jews would have a huge problem with you, and your beloved organization, pretending to be their voice.

Tell us ohara, what do you think you represent, exactly?


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 21 January 2008 04:54 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:

To be fair ACJC does not hand out membership cards one needs only to request membership in a yahoo group to join. To do that all you need is an email address.


Really? The membership form I filled out must be a fake then never mind the membership fee I paid.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 21 January 2008 04:57 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
For my part I will duck out with nthe firmly held belief that here if you are of the same mind, you can rarely do wrong even when you are wrong. ACJC discriminates and yes so does cjc. That they are permitted to do so no one cares less . That cjc is doing it somehow makes it more onerous becuse it is too mainstrem for Babble. I get it I really do.

Ahem.

The Jewish Community's Official Voice On Public Affairs

Which group makes that claim ohara? Oh my, it's the CJC, isn't it? And the implication of claiming to "officially" speak on behalf of the Jewish community is what?


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 21 January 2008 04:58 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
What you don't get is that almost all Jewish Canadians strongly disagree with groups like acjc and on this matter feel much closer to cjc.

I'm sorry, when was the last Jewish election in which this was decided? Do you at least have polling numbers that suggest how "close" the Jewish community actually is to the CJC on issues such as Israel (or school funding for that matter?)


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 21 January 2008 05:01 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:

Bullshit ohara. Total bullshit. You are your own worst enemy and you have it backwards, unless somewhere you can point to me stats that say most Jews are pro-occupation. Go ahead ohara, after all, you can live with that can't you? You can easily live with the destruction of the Palestinian people. But I think many many Jews would have a huge problem with you, and your beloved organization, pretending to be their voice.

Tell us ohara, what do you think you represent, exactly?


That's just the point isn't it? cjc has never claimed to be "pro-occupation". Its not even the official representative on Israel matters. Babble has appointed it so. Many cjc leaders have opposed the occupation from ed Morgan to the late Milton Harris who was also involved in Peace Now. In fact Peace Now members are part of cjc. So continue to live in your own little bubble and continue your fantasy about waht you think cjc is. I get it.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 21 January 2008 05:04 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Its not even the official representative on Israel matters.

So why exclude the ACJC?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 January 2008 05:06 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
For my part I will duck out with nthe firmly held belief that here if you are of the same mind, you can rarely do wrong even when you are wrong. ACJC discriminates and yes so does cjc. That they are permitted to do so no one cares less . That cjc is doing it somehow makes it more onerous becuse it is too mainstrem for Babble. I get it I really do.

C'mon. Someone else sees what I'm seeing, right? Tell me I'm not alone, here.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 21 January 2008 06:10 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
This is getting pretty tiresome.I am having trouble understanding both ohara and coyote. Perhaps this thread has had it's day.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 21 January 2008 06:30 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To his credit ohara does recognize the occupation exists (unlike BB/JDL types who use it in quotes and say there's no such thing as Palestinians)...there's hope
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 January 2008 07:00 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
This is getting pretty tiresome.I am having trouble understanding both ohara and coyote. Perhaps this thread has had it's day.

Am I unclear? Allow me to
clarify.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 21 January 2008 07:04 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is true. I'm still shocked when I run into BBC/JDL types who claim there's no such thing as a Palestinian.

They get really peeved when I mention a hemological study that came out a few years ago which suggested Palestinians and Jews (and not just Shephardic Jews but Ashkenazis as well which really surpised me) are more closely related to each other than Palestinians are to other Arabs or than Jews are to Europeans. I'd have to dig it up but apparently there are some blood markers that show up in a similar frequency among Jews and Palestinians.

It's bad enough to tell BBCers that Palestinans are a distinct group from Arabs but when you tell them they are actually closely related to Jews - apoplexy! My view is that in many ways Jews and Palestinians are the same people except one group remained Jewish and the other became Muslim or Christian. Not unlike how Pakistani Muslims and northern Indians are the same people aside from religion or how Irish Protestants and more closely related to Irish Catholics than they are to Scots or the English even with the Anglo-Scottish "Plantation" of Ireland.

[ 21 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 22 January 2008 01:41 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
What you don't get is that almost all Jewish Canadians strongly disagree with groups like acjc and on this matter feel much closer to cjc. You don't get it. You never will get it becuause you just don't accept it. That's fine. I can live with it.

[singing]I have losta friends and you-have-none...Nyah, nyah, n-nyah, nyah...[/singing]

Is this what it's come to, ohara? Mishificator at least mishified the blatant plugs with something resembling logical argument. What is it; budget cuts? A policy decision to go for a more direct marketing approach, or just a case of "good help is hard to find?"


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 22 January 2008 03:14 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Trust me I understand how difficult it must be for you to face the truth.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 22 January 2008 03:17 AM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
This is true. I'm still shocked when I run into BBC/JDL types who claim there's no such thing as a Palestinian.

They get really peeved when I mention a hemological study that came out a few years ago which suggested Palestinians and Jews (and not just Shephardic Jews but Ashkenazis as well which really surpised me) are more closely related to each other than Palestinians are to other Arabs or than Jews are to Europeans. I'd have to dig it up but apparently there are some blood markers that show up in a similar frequency among Jews and Palestinians.

It's bad enough to tell BBCers that Palestinans are a distinct group from Arabs but when you tell them they are actually closely related to Jews - apoplexy! My view is that in many ways Jews and Palestinians are the same people except one group remained Jewish and the other became Muslim or Christian. Not unlike how Pakistani Muslims and northern Indians are the same people aside from religion or how Irish Protestants and more closely related to Irish Catholics than they are to Scots or the English even with the Anglo-Scottish "Plantation" of Ireland.

[ 21 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


It must be tough for them. On the one hand they want to be able to claim that Jews are the indigenous peoples of Israel, but at the same time they'd balk at the idea that they're anything like the Palestinians.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 January 2008 05:39 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long enough.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca