Boycott!
So the TUC has passed a motion supporting certain actions against the state of Israel, including a boycott of some of the products emanating from the ‘illegal settlements’, where workers are encouraged to refuse to process or work with such goods insofar as it will not bring management down upon their heads. There are supportive and condemnatory tones coming in from around the blogosphere – e.g. at Modernity Blog and Lenin’s Tomb. Socialist Unity has the details of the resolution, from which I’d like to quote a few snippets.
As a result of the Gaza offensive, the TUC calls on the British Government to:
(a) condemn the Israeli military aggression and the continuing blockade of Gaza;
(b) end arms sales to Israel which reached a value of £18.8 million in 2008, up from £7.7 million in 2007;
(c) seek EU agreement to impose a ban on the importing of goods produced in the illegal settlements; and
(d) support moves to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement which provides preferential trade facilities to Israel.
I think actions (a), (b) and (c) are eminently proportionate steps. This country should not be engaged in the arms trade, because those weapons are ultimately turned against workers – of whatever nationality, colour or creed. We should condemn Israeli military aggression, just as, despite suffering the 7/7 attacks, we criticize British military aggression. By this I am not implying a moral equivalence or suggesting that Britons live under the same cloud as Israelis – but state-led aggression is state-led aggression. Period.
Working to establish some conditions under which goods produced in the illegal settlements might be restricted, and seeking to establish an EU consensus on this issue, also seems like a good idea. ModBlog makes the point that we can’t know which goods come from where (Edit: this is factually inaccurate – I must have read the sentiment elsewhere and misattributed it; see comments – DS) but there’s no harm in trying to find out and stopping the import of those we can clearly identify. If the financial viability of these settlements is ever further called into question, perhaps the Israeli state will be more eager to relinquish them, and Israelis less likely to settle there.
How effective this will be I can’t say. Bearing in mind that the face of organized Israeli labour seems just a tad social-chauvinist (see below for more detail), there’s an argument to be made that straightforward persuasion of Israeli workers hasn’t worked. Equally, however, an attempt to embargo even certain portions of Israeli goods might simply turn Israeli workers off listening to foreign voices of solidarity. The point turns on an intimate knowledge of the Israeli working class, which I simply do not have.
Proposition (d) seems rather more questionable. With the exceptions of arms sales, I see no reason why the EU should not provide preferential trade facilities to Israel. However, I can see why calling for the suspension of such an agreement – a call made even by charities such as War on Want – could be a useful political lever by which to potentially rein in the more disproportionate or arbitrary actions of the Israeli government. Certainly this was the intent when War on Want issued their call in response to the Gaza blockade.
The TUC motion continues…
The TUC reiterates our pledge to work in solidarity with the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) and urges unions to support financially the TUC/PGFTU projects funded through TUC Aid as well as the joint Histadrut-PGFTU projects being developed in several sectors under the auspices of Global Union Federations. We welcome the resolution last year of the longstanding dispute over the remittance of membership subscriptions from the Histadrut to the PGFTU, which was brokered by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and support any stronger relations between the Histadrut and the PGFTU that they wish to develop.
The TUC condemns the Histadrut statement of 13 January 2009 which backed the attacks on Gaza and showed insufficient concern for the level of civilian casualties. At the same time, we recognize the recent Histadrut resolution on peace and co-operation, welcomed by the ITUC, which calls on the Israeli government ‘to make concessions and take courageous and concrete steps towards attaining peace.’ We will continue to press Histadrut to take a firmer line on these issues. The General Council will raise Congress’ concerns with the Histadrut and report back to Congress on future relationships.
To increase the pressure for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories, and the removal of the separation wall and the illegal settlements, we will support a boycott (where trade union members should not put their own jobs at risk by refusing to deal with such products) of those goods and agricultural products that originate in illegal settlements – through developing an effective, targeted consumer-led boycott campaign working closely with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign – and campaign for disinvestment by companies associated with the occupation as well as engaged in building the separation wall. In undertaking these actions each affiliate will operate within its own aims and objectives and within the law.
We reiterate our encouragement to unions to affiliate to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and to raise greater awareness of the issues.
The involvement of international union federations in Israel is encouraging, as is co-operation between the PGFTU and Histadrut – and the TUC is right to say so. Histadrut support for the attacks on Gaza was just as wrong as the attacks themselves – and TUC has said that too. I don’t really see that anyone can have a problem with the first two paragraphs, above, unless they actually agree with Histadrut that the IDF attacks were necessary, in some sense, and who can’t see that such support simply undermines co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian unions.
An interesting article on the response by such social chauvinists appears here, though I cannot attest its veracity.
It is the third paragraph, the boycott urged on members of British trades unions, which seems to be attacting the most concern. I don’t see why. A boycott on dealing with goods from the illegal settlements, and a targeted campaign to boycott such goods as are made there, is not necessarily a bad thing. The Left has a long history of boycotts – from slave-made materials from the United States to Coca-Cola, in response to its alleged involvement in South American paramilitary activities, directed against local trades unionists.
At the very least, such a tool is useful for raising public consciousness. It’s all very well to say “X is happening” but people, I think, pay more attention if you can say “X is happening and this is what we do about it… .” Needless to say I don’t think a boycott will solve very much, primarily because it will be on such a small scale. But it’s as well to have the issue out there, being debated in Students Unions and other bodies. Certainly the Coca-Cola boycott got a lot of people excited – it may not have made much difference to such a huge corporation, but it sent the right message to Colombian trades unionists, who came to visit and thank us for the funds raised and our efforts against Coke, and towards workers in local Coca-Cola factories.
There’s no reason why a boycott of goods from the illegal settlements should be any different. Is there?
“ModBlog makes the point that we can’t know which goods come from where ”
No, I don’t. You might want to re-read my writings.
Do excuse me. It must have been one of the fifteen other blogs I read, voicing similar sarcastic sentiments to this, which does come from yours:
“Not known for their love of all things Israeli, some pro-boycotters might want to ignore, forget or even destroy their pet telescopes as Israelis have discovered a new planet.
After which pro-boycotters might want to stop using Google (oh, yes, they use an Israeli developed algorithm), Intel based PCs, Windows XP, etc and a whole lot of useful medical technologies.”
Good summary.
I think the issue of preferential trade agreement with the EU is that there is some problem with accepting trade with illegal settlements in the West bank, the agricultrual produce from stolen land is simply marked as “Produce of Israel”
And as such the EU should not be rewarding illegality.
Modernity overlooks the degree to which the Israeli technological advances he refers to are really technology transfer from US multinationals. There are some legal and other practical advantages of locating development in Israel.
geez, that is NOT my point, do I really need to belabour it?
Yes please, evidently I am hard of understanding.
I find it extraordinary that the TUC calls for a “consumer” boycott, but noticeably *doesn’t” call upon its affilliated members to refuse to handle Israeli goods (even those from the occupied territories). The reason is obvious: this is a piece of gesture politics, designed to assuage the consciences of PSC and SWP types who want a “hate Israel” position without having to campaign for it amongst their members.
The TUC General Council position at least dosn’t call for a total ban on Israel – though that’s how the anti-Israel fanatics of PSC, etc will attempt to portary it (see John Haylett in today’s ‘Morning Star’). But the fanatics *do* have a pint: how the hell are goods from the occupied territories supposed to be identified? Tjis will, in pracvtice, either be a total ban on all Israeli products, etc…or an ineffectual inoperqative gesture. I hope and expect it to be the latter.
Palestinians and jewish workers need solidarity not futile boycotts. The anti Israel fanatics (fronted on this occassion by the FBU) have done a disservice to working class unity in the Middle East. Their attempt mto break the TUC’s lin ks with the Histadrut is a blatant example of dual standards and anti-Israeli hysteria all too common in the British trade union movement – especially the supposed “left.”
Well, here’s a question. If there was a union-led boycott, would it lead to a victory or would it lead to union members getting fired for not doing their job? Does the TUC have the strength to follow up on such an instruction to workers?
A victory?
How so? Thru’ the international stigmatization of Israelis? Would that be a victory? Only if someone’s got a chip on their shoulders about Israelis and doesn’t understand the Middle East?
You would do well to look up the history of Boycotts particularly as they relate to Jews, Poland is a good starting place pre-1933.
Modernityblog…the international stigmatization of Israelis? As I pointed out to you on your own blog, and as you plainly refused to engage with, the purpose of the TUC motion is not to embargo all Israeli goods. Is it? So how then is this a stigmatization of all Israelis?
And I know a bit about the history of boycotts relating to Jews – but this TUC motion is hardly the next thing to Kristallnacht. Or maybe you think it’s heading that direction?
Dave: as the President of the FBU, Mick Shaw, pointed out, the produce of the occupied territories are impossible to identify. Therefor…EITHER this will be, in practice a total boycott on all Israeli produce (and other links with Israel) as the PCS wants. Which would, in my view be anti-semitic…. OR it’s an ineffectual piece of gesture politics.
Either way, it’s bad. What’s needed is solidarity between Israeli and Palestinian workers. The “boycott” position of the PSC and others militates against that. Their calls for a break with the Histadrut are compl,etely hypocritical and classic examples of anti-Jewish dual standards.
A boycott campaign, if effective- which fortunately, there’s little sign it would be), would
1/ Not help the Palestinian struggle for a state in any way…and:
2/ Convince tyhe vat majority of Jews that the trade union movement is hostile to them.
So: No to the boycott; Yes to links and solidarity!
Jim; frankly I don’t know if what Mick Shaw says is true. In the article above, I recognize that there are probably difficulties – but is there any harm in the TUC looking into the issue a bit further? If what Mick said is true, then I doubt very much that the majority of the trades union movement would support a boycott. And that’s why this is so clearly not anything to do with anti-semitism.
As for whether or not such a move is bad – whether as gesture politics or a targeted boycott – I am not in a position to say. I think the gesture works, personally, working on my experience with the Coca-Cola boycott. The targeted boycott, no idea – and I said so. As for what impact it has on Israeli views of international solidarity and other nations’ trades unions, again, I said I do not know and laid out my conditions for making a judgment.
“And I know a bit about the history of boycotts relating to Jews”
Good, then please do tell us about Jews and Boycotts in Poland pre 1933
Modernityblog…why should I bother? I’ve raised several points with you in regard to your own comments and you’ve ignored all of them.
Indeed Dave, why bother?
That would require you to know something, to actually think, to judge, I seriously doubt you’d be to able do that.
dave: the matter’s simple. Criteria are being appiled to Israel and to the Israeli trades unions (the Histradut) that are not applied to any other stae or labour movement in the world. A disgraceful and sladerous analogy is being touted (the comparison with Apartheid South Africa) by the PCS. Isreal and its people are being demonised. It’s anti-semitism, plain and simple. The TUV vote pulled back from the worst excesses, but it was still pretty bad.
The “boycott” position is, simply, a disgrace. It gives aid and comfort to anti-semites, even if that’s not the intention of those behind it. Socialists should oppose it all down the line. And have done with the smug crap we’ve tolerated for too long about “Anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-semitism”: bollocks! Most of the time, these days, it is!
Jim, I must say I’m concerned at all this talk of anti-semitism. Even if ‘Israel and its people’ were being demonised, that is hardly anti-semitism unless you, I and everyone else buy into the conflation of ‘Israel and its people’ with Judaism – and Judaism is surely bigger than the people and government of one State?
This boycott, as far as I can see from its text, is a protest against the treatment of Palestinians, expresses a desire to increase solidarity work under the aegis of international union federations and wishes to provide economic disincentive to the continued illegal settlements by the Israeli state (and, yes, some section of the Israeli populace). I don’t see anything prima facie wrong with any of that – but maybe I’m missing something. And as I said, I have laid out my criteria for coming to firmer decision on the rights and wrongs in this specific instance.
You say that a disgraceful and slanderous analogy is being touted by PCS (PSC or the union?) – that the treatment of Palestinians is akin to that of Black South Africans. At least on one level I can see why people are saying that. I am rarely one to rush to judgment without seeing things for myself, but it seems that there is plenty of evidence to suggest Palestinians are treated very, very badly – the Gaza blockade being one instance actually mentioned in the text of the GC Statement.
Even discounting that analogy, the position of the Histadrut seems reminiscent of the trades unions and parties of the Second International before the outbreak of World War I – and I think that is a position deserving of condemnation. It may be that the Israeli Histadrut is not the only union conglomerate with such views in the world – but the answer is surely not to surrender a principled critique of unions and socialist parties which support the violence of their own government, it is to publicize the other examples as well?
I would actually have to go back and look at the text of different international motions submitted to the TUC over the last number of years to substantiate your view that Israel and the Histadrut is treated in a uniquely hostile fashion.
Finally I would invite you to consider Hannah Arendt’s remarks anti-semitism is neither plain nor simple. You may think this is a new way of saying “anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-semitism”, but you know what? If we are all against the appropriation of religio-cultural artifacts and sentiment in this country, or in the USA, in defence of the capitalist State and nationalism, why shouldn’t we be against it everywhere else as well?
Dave: get real! The vast majority of Jewish people identify – often critically – with Israel. A generalised “anti -Israel” campaign will *inevitably* be perceived as anti-Jewish and contribute to an atmosphere in which Jews feel threatened and unwelcome. That’s *exactly* what has happened in UCU. That might be a price worth paying if there was any evidence that it would help the Palestinians achieve their own state – but there is none.
This is a dangerous, reactionary and worthless excercise being promoted by people (like the SWP and PSC) who don’t give a damn about Palestinian statehood but simply hate Israel and its people.
You’ve already admitted that deninciations of the Histadrut is a form of exceptionalism. Yes, we should denounce *all* examples of trades unions supporting the violence of there own governments…except in general that isn’t done, is it? N ame me a trade union body that has *never* supported its own government in war…yet only th Histadrut gets denounced. I call that “exceptionalism” (when I’m being polite that is).