Posted on 03/11/2005 7:09:09 AM PST by SJackson
Recently an advisory was sent to one of the writers for “Current Viewpoint” from the Friends of al-Aqsa, a group based in Great Britain whose purpose is to promote the Palestinian cause. The advisory announces with considerable fanfare that the charity Oxfam has terminated its relations with Starbucks.
Explaining that the Islamic Human Rights Commission and Innovative Minds (a group supported by Friends of al Aqsa), the Palestinian Return Centre, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign have been in meetings with Oxfam, it emerges that the campaign’s target is “pro-Zionist multinational chain Starbucks.” That is news to us. So, all those Frappuccinos we have been guzzling here at Current Viewpoint are in some way supporting rampaging settlers and angry rabbis?
The document from Friends of al Aqsa says the organisations listed above had expressed their concerns to Oxfam regarding its one-year contract with Starbucks. According to the narrative, Starbucks had agreed to contribute ‘100,000’ (a currency is not specified) to Oxfam’s rural development programme in the East Harare coffee growing region of Ethiopia. We are instructed at this stage of the document to read background material.
Then it all begins to take shape: the al Aqsa paper states that Starbucks chair Howard Schultz is a pro-Zionist activist who helps ‘student projects in North America and Israel give presentations on the Israeli perspective of the Intifada.’ We are told that Starbucks has been a sponsor of bowl4israel and supports occupation troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks are then proffered to the pressure groups and supporters who had petitioned Oxfam to cease its relationship with Starbucks, stressing that the petitioners ('those struggling for justice') had been instrumental in ensuring that Oxfam adhered to humanitarian values.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission asks campaigners to contact Barbara Stocking of Oxfam to express gratitude for their action and to express support for a victory for common sense.
Jewish people, like those who run ORT, send considerable sums of money to the Third World. Jewish World ORT supports needy projects in Muslim and Christian countries. Golda Meir worked tirelessly to aid African nations. The local synagogue to Current Viewpoint’s office gives large sums to non-Jewish charities and causes. It is in the Jewish tradition of 'tzedakah' to give to anyone in need. Israel was one of the first to jump to aid Muslim nations and peoples after the tsunami. Hundreds of synagogues across the Western world raised thousands for the tsunami victims.
The al Aqsa document offends Jews who support pro-Palestinian causes because by attacking Howard Schultz it attacks every Jew who gives tzedakah to his or her chosen cause. Oxfam is a registered charity and should not be taking political sides. Little kids in Israel are devising computer programmes, not blowing people up.
For every Howard Schultz there are a thousand ill-informed Imams inculcating innocent Muslim children with hatred of the West. Schultz sends youngsters to learn worthy skills and to get fresh air in Israel, which is their right as Jews, as is the right of a Christian sponsor of trips to the Holy Land.
When we hold symphony concerts or opera evenings to raise funds for Palestine, are the al Aqsa groups going to boycott it because many of the musicians are Jews?
When are these groups going to reach out for peace as Sharon has done and stop condemning everything Jews do to help their own people? There are 55 Muslim nations -- let the Jews support their own if they so desire. Whilst Mr Schultz is supporting seminars for young people in North America to understand the effects of the Intifada on the survival of the tiny, sole Jewish State, he is also donating assistance to the Third World.
Those who attended a one-day Friends of al Aqsa conference at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London last year would have witnessed the spine-chilling and often irrational hostility to the concept of Jewish Statehood fifty-six years after the establishment of Israel. From the speeches offered at the conference, most particularly that from Dr Izzam al Tamimi, the agenda of this group appears to be the dismantling of any vestige of a sovereign Jewish entity in the region. One speaker even suggested that John Kerry was a dangerous Zionist and that the huge majority of Jewish Democrats supported Zionist causes.
Whether Starbucks gives 100,000 coffee beans or dollars to Ethiopia is, we believe, irrelevant; Jews giving charity are not wanted by anti-Israel pressure groups, and even if a well-meaning Hadassah officer offered a large sum to the Third World, a paper would appear on the Web exposing her as a ‘rabid Zionist’ because she also gives to WIZO. (At this moment WIZO is sponsoring soup kitchens in Israel for the hundreds of citizens who have ended up in poverty as a result of the al Aqsa Intifadah.)
Campaigns like those promulgated by the British al-Aqsa group are retrogressive and counter-productive. When a Muslim company can produce as dynamic a coffee empire as Starbucks, or as clever a fresh food franchise as Marvellous Markets, and then give money and aid to all manner of men and women, I will applaud them. Yes, the agenda of this advisory is ‘Sharon is killing our children whilst Starbucks cultivates Zionist youth in America,’ but the spirit of the world at this moment in time is the earthquake of freedom movements emerging in the Middle East and we urge the al Aqsa Friends to enter that spirit, not boycott those incomparable Frappuccinos which we at Current Viewpoint fully intend continuing to buy with great passion in perpetuity.
I got some Gevalia spam in my snail mail the other day asking me if I'd like to get a special coffee maker and 2 pounds of premium coffee for $20. It was tempting...
I've never tried Gevalia. I'll have to give it a try since you recommend it. Thanks.
Yeah, I fell for that. I think they put something in that coffee to make it addictive. I subscribed for about 5 years before I managed to break the habit and drink the cheaper stuff.
That was totally uncalled for. Can't you come up with something more intelligent than that ..??
I think this is what happens when you try to be all things to all people. Diversity will end up biting you in the end!
OXFAM is obstensivley a non-religeous organization, however that statement is not truely accurate. OXFAM's real religion is leftism in it's many joyful and diverse forms. Socialism, Communism and the entire leftist catalog of beliefs and causes. What this article boils down to, is that a charity supposedly dedicated to the poor turned down a $100,000 dollar donation from a wealthy Jewish benefactor.
The Jewish benefactor is more than likely a leftist, as they are the ones who donate big money to OXFAM. OXFAM however, sides with the Palistinian cause and had to return the "dirty Jew money for the poor", as the donation offended persons with Islamic senibilities. Now, if you were not Jewish and you wanted to donate $100,000 dollars to OXFAM specifically to building a bomb making school for blowing up Jews, I'm sure these OXFAM f*ckers could hook you up.
I live in the Seattle area and walk by three starbucks' just to get to my office. I buy about one cup every three months, except when someone gives me a gift card, in which case I use it up pretty much daily on really expensive drinks.
The reason is money. It aint worth it and it adds up if you go there daily. I get free coffee at work and it's "good enough" for daily use - especially free.
Many Muslims seem to misunderstand the concept of charity. Many of their "charities" double as terror organizations.
Are you equating ADL and CAIR?
And it is hard to argue with the financial success of Starbucks. It is a model for Capitalism and its sucess undermines any argument the anti-globalists have.
What's wrong with rebuilding black neighborhoods?
I looked at the website, and this product benefits farmers. What's wrong with that?
Schultz may be "Liberal", but if more leftists followed his liberality the term might be reclaimed.
Well, in view of the fact that I own a coffee plantation and it's all American and the best coffee in the world, I guess I have a better perspective than most on the crap that Starbucks calls coffee. Thanks anyway.
So what's the name of your coffee ..??
Schultz is a very rich man whose company enters into lease agreements that stipulate that NO small coffee companies or shops can be on any of the property (often huge malls) or in the vacinity. Unfortunately, Mr. Schultz's 'liberalism' does not include the 'little guys', which is pretty typical of all liberals. Once they 'arrive' they try to make sure that everyone else 'knows their place and keeps it'. An example is the attitude of the Dems towards Blacks. "Yos all jes kep dum so wes can take care ob yub". Starbucks is one of the most aggressive and brutal enforcers of preventing competition.
What you've described is fairly typical business practice. I understand that as a smaller competitor you may oppose it, but the policy sounds sensible to me. No one is forcing the leaseholders to lease to Starbucks. And Starbucks must be paying for the exclusivity clauses. I see nothing illiberal here.
For years NYC Government has prevented stores like Walmart from opening in order to protect small businesses. As a consumer I am harmed. I don't think it is the province of government to set these conditions, but it is another thing if the open market comes to an arrangement.
Further if Starbucks is keeping stores in Black neighborhoods they are enabling employment which does not amount to taking care of people but allowing people to take care of themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.