The idea that espousing humanitarian values and acting as a humanitarian organization should not involve politics is simply silly ... it's fallacious ... given that humanitarian situations can come about as a consequence of things which are political in nature ... such as oppression and exploitation of the weak and largely defenseless, by the strong and powerful ...
It may very well be silly, and fallacious, but I'm not the one to make that claim. Oxfam is the one who claims to be apolitical. There's no question that disaster relief and fighting poverty can have political ramifications and/or political associations. My issue is with them saying they aren't political, that they aren't political organization, when they do in fact have a political agenda, one driven by the people now at the top of Oxfam, starting with the new executive director herself. Oxfam started out, and for many decades was, a purely charitable organization, but has in recent years become a political activist with a purely socialist agenda "focused on fighting the root causes of poverty at the international level."
Their issues used to be Active Citizenship (getting people involved in their communities), Agriculture and Natural Resources (teaching people how to grow their own food and be good stewards of their lands), Aid Effectiveness (making sure donated and other aid gets to where it's needed), Emergency Response (natural disasters), Education (so people can intelligently deal with their own situations), Health (to keep people healthy), all of which are worthy issues. Not too long ago they added HIV/AIDS to their portfolio because of the rampant HIV epidemic in Third World countries. Again, a worthy issue to deal with. Then, in the last couple of decades they added Climate Change to their agenda, which is purely political (follow the money, always), and then branched out to International Trade and Private Sector business practices. Climate Change, and Trade and Private Secctor business practices are not charitable issues, they are political issues, used to promote their socialist agenda to fight "the root causes of poverty at the international level," which they view simply as rich people, rich corporations, and rich nations.
Im my opinion, Oxfam used to be this totally awesome humanitarian organization. Now, not so much.
You think actions against slavery in the US by abolitionist groups wasn't a humanitarian issue and didn't involve politics ?
I don't think that at all. Nor do I think abolitionist groups claimed to be apolitical.
The only way what you seem to imply (politics vs humanitarian action) could have legitimacy, would be if any political positions that Oxfam took were not in furtherance of their humanitarian aims ...
Bingo.
That's a case you're welcome to make ... if you can.
It's a rather easy one to make, because Oxfam makes it for me.
"Oxfam believes that businesses, such as SodaStream, that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support."
Oxfam would rather hundreds of Palestinians be fired and SodaStream relocate, than have those people employed and earning a living.
Huh ?
Does Oxfam even have a position on the BDS movement ?
They most definitely do. They say so right there on their
Web page. "Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law."
More data about exactly what was going on with that (apparently exploitation of the poor by the rich, an age-old story if ever there was one):
Oxfam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC NEWS | Africa | Starbucks in Ethiopia coffee row
Yes, the exploitation of the poor by the rich is Oxfam's prime hobby horse these days. They're about the redistribution of wealth as much as they are about anything. On the Starbucks deal, which Oxfam claims a resounding victory, the US Patent Office granted a mark for Yirgacheffe, but denied it for Harar, Sidamo. The result is that not as many Yirgacheffe beans are being bought as before the patent, and the farmers receive a smaller percentage of those sales with the rest of the money going to the Ethiopian government in the form of higher taxes to help fund the fight against poverty, of which almost none of the money gets used for that purpose. Farmers are getting market prices for Harar, Sidamo, and they're getting all of that money because they're selling directly to the buyers.
Yeah ... so ? (regarding Dole)
You're not down with mislabeling and misrepresentation to consumers are you ?
No, I'm not. It's just that it's not a call for Oxfam to make. Oxfam has a tendency to want to tell businesses what to do and how to do it, especially when there is a Fair Trade branded product in competition. I'm not down with that, because they have a vested financial interest in Fair Trade brands.
Isn't being an informed consumer a good thing ?
It's a very good thing.
Don't consumers have at least a reasonable expectation (if not a right) to not be mislead by those whose products they might purchase ?
I think this is largely covered by the technical term "fraud" ...
Yes, they do have that right. But I only hear Oxfam screaming about product labels on product that compete with their or Fair Brand.
"Coates urged New Zealand shoppers to choose Fairtrade certified bananas, which he said were independently verified so "people can be confident they are benefiting farmers and workers, rather than exploiting them."
Yup. Except they're not independently verified, they're verified, for a cost to the farmer or the seller, by Oxfam.
So you figure that enabling and giving sanction to illegal settlements and the companies that operate in them - which are subsidized by the Israeli government - and which have the net effect of furthering the denial of self-determination to a people is "humanitarian" ?
Clever twist, but no. Humanitarian is fighting poverty, taking a stance on the Israeli settlements is politics, especially when Sodastream, and nearly every other business in that industrial park doesn't in any way deny self-determination to the Palestinians. There are plenty of Palestinians employed in the industrial park, and there are Palestinian businesses located there. SodaStream is not "subsidized by the Israeli government" any more than other businesses in Israeli proper are. To imply they are is disengenuous at best. In fact, Sodastream is getting a better tax deal in it's under-construction plant in Negev, within internationally recognized Israeli territory. The new plant, which is due to open very soon, will receive significant “additional support” on top of what plants in Priority A zones of Israel and the West Bank get, because of a government decision to promote the development in the Negev. The subsidies in the West Bank are not unique to West Bank settlements. They are available, too, in other National Priority Areas within Israel proper.
SodaStream estimates that wages for entry-level workers at Mishor Adumim - which are the same for Palestinians and Israelis - are four to six times the Palestinian average. It's a claim that has been verified and conceded to by even the harshest critics of the settlements.
I think your characterization (non-humanitarian) is fallacious, inaccurate, and grossly misleading ...
I never characterized them as being non-humanitarian. In fact, if I recall correctly, and you know I do, I characterized them as "a humanitarian organization created to fight poverty, and that's mostly what they do." But I also stated, and stand by it, that their political stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a humanitarian stance, it is a position in conflict with humanitarianism, because they'd rather see hundreds of Palestinians making 4-6 times the average Palestinian wage be fired and put out of work, thereby dramatically increasing the chances of those workers sinking back into poverty, than give up their political agenda. You might think that's fallacious, inaccurate and grossly misleading, but I don't. I think it's the truth, backed up by Oxfam's own statements.
Perhaps we need to start with defining the term "humanitarian" and expound on just exactly what constitutes it ?
Seems to me that the term refers to having a concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people, to alleviate suffering. Oxfam puts that in terms of disaster relief and fighting poverty. The problem comes in how you achieve that goal. Oxfam wants to do it by being Robin Hood. They are, after all, a British organization.
You characterize them as being "political", apparently disallowing that they might also be humanitarian ...
Now who's fallacious, inaccurate and grossly misleading?
That in itself is a political characterization and as I said earlier is fallacious on its face ...
And yet it's based solely on Oxfam's own words and actions.
It's sort of like the opposite of the fallacy of conflation, saying that since two things which are, or can be, somewhat different - that they therefore cannot be somehow related and intertwined.
It seems to be an assertion that they are mutually exclusive ... when, in fact, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
"Apparently," "seems to be," - I don't know why you are so intent on mischaracterizing my statements. I plainly said they are both, and never hinted that they cannot be both, or that humanitarian and political were mutually exclusive. My issue is with the blatant hypocrissy of Oxfam claiming to be apolitical.
Yup ... and exactly why that is is certainly an issue that deserves to be explored ...
What, exactly, is the underlined undefined referencing, the
why of the 22 manucaturing facilities around the world, or the 22 percent unemployment in the West Bank?
I suspect that the fact that the Occupied Territories don't control their own borders (Israel does, save for the one border crossing with Egypt) might have a little something to do with it.
OK, based on that sentence, I'm going to assume the
why refers to the 22 percent unemployment in the West Bank, because I can't see how that who controls what borders has anything to do with manufacturing facilities outside of those borders. So, based on my own assumption, I would agree with you that a factor of unemployment is who controls the borders. But I'm not sure how SodaStream has contributed to the unemployment rate in any negative way.
Employment is not necessarily the opposite of poverty ... it's only something that has the potential of possibly alleviating the condition, but it is by no means assured.
OK, I'll give you that emoployment in and of itself is not necessarily the opposite of poverty, but I stand by my belief that those hundreds of Palestinians employed by SodaStream making a wage higher than the poverty level are better off than they would otherwise by if they were unemployed and living in poverty.
You are aware are you not that by virtue of having this facility in the Occupied Territories, SodaStream is outside the reach of the Israeli ministry of Labor, and is essentially governed under Israeli military, not civil, law ...
No, I am not aware of that. In 2007, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that Palestinian workers in settlements must receive the same rights - including minimum wage - as workers in Israel. While there are certainly cases where the ruling is not enforced, claims of inequality and abuse of Palestinians by SodaStream were all found to be unfounded claims. While Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank have two very different sets laws and rules, business headquartered in Israel proper and operating in the West Bank are nevertheless bound by Israeli civil law.
That's about like saying if the North was more concerned about poverty than politics, they wouldn't care one way or the other about how all those nice Southern plantation owners were creating "jobs" for those over-endowed, pigmentally-challenged folks down on the farm prior to 1861 ...
After all, them plantation owners were awfully nice folks ... real apolitical humanitarians ... why, they even provided "free" housing and meals ! ...
My statement isn't "about like saying" that at all. Yours is a strawman. Palestinitan employees of SodaStream don't make slave wages. Slaves lived in poverty, SodaStream emplyees do not. Oxfam is concerned about poverty, therefor they want to eliminate those jobs. Oxfam doesn't pass the smell test on the issue.
And in any event, just remember: "Arbeit macht frei ! (Work will make you free)
Godwin's Law of Creative Strawmem notwithstanding, you agree with Oxfam? That those high paying SodaStream jobs should be eliminated and the Palestinians should be fired? That SodaStream should pack up and move elsewhere, because that will keep those employees and the rest of the West Bank out of poverty? Interesting.
