Comments on: Boycott!

By: modernityblog

modernityblog — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:30:58 +0000

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.

By: Jim Denham

Jim Denham — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:03:23 +0000

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).

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:53:14 +0000

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?

By: Jim Denham

Jim Denham — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:02:35 +0000

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!

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:43:38 +0000

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.

By: modernityblog

modernityblog — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:31:39 +0000

“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

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:14:49 +0000

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.

By: Jim Denham

Jim Denham — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:08:11 +0000

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!

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:53:01 +0000

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?

By: modernityblog

modernityblog — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:42:47 +0000

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.