For anybody in the Manchester area.

Opponents of the boycott may like to know that Bricup will be holding the following meeting in Manchester.

Monday 7th December, 7pm
Lecture Theatre A, University Place,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road.

THE CASE FOR SANCTIONS AND BOYCOTT

Speakers:
Ronnie Kasrils
former minister in Nelson Mandela’s ANC government and
anti-Apartheid activist

Bongani Masuku (International Secretary) / George Mahlangu
 (Campaigns Coordinator) Cosatu – the South African trade union federation

Omar Barghouti
Palestinian Campaign for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions

Chair: Tom Hickey
National Executive Committee of the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) and BRICUP

Palestinian workers, unions don’t support BDS campaign

At TULIP:

“In an extraordinary series of blog postings, British trade unionists visiting Israel and Palestine have learned that Palestinian workers and their unions are not enthusiastic supporters of the campaign for boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) targetting Israel.

In fact, they were told bluntly that the BDS campaign is bad news for Palestinians.

USDAW National Executive member Mike Dixon wrote:

“There was a discussion about the boycott and it is clear that Palestinians don’t want it – all they want is equal pay and a living.”

The communications director for the Advance union added:

“Listening to people from both communities on the subject of the proposed international trade union boycott, it is evident that all parties oppose this action.  In a meeting with the Jerusalem Municipality workers, one view from the Palestinian contingent was that a boycott would be more detrimental to the Arab workforce than any other. The reason for this was that in the event of economic sanctions, it would cause a detrimental impact on the employment levels of their community.”

The entire blog should be required reading for trade unionists in Britain and elsewhere.”

Read it all, and wonder why British boycotting union activists (because theirs is an activist-led boycott, not a membership-led one) are so incredibly attached to the boycott idea. However, since there is a groundswell of support for Palestinians, it would be good to have a better understanding of the kind of support Palestinian trade unionists hope for from their international community of advocates.

HT Ben

The TUC boycott conflict, Carter and Obama

I haven’t been able to give due attention to recent boycott events, including Jane Fonda’s apology for signing a boycott petition, anti-Israel policy passed by Canadian Christians, and Samuel Maoz’s anti-boycott statement on the occasion of his Venice Film Festival win. Many more links slide through my fingers, but I managed to grab hold of the TUC.

Boycotting activists have forced the Trade Union Congress to dedicate mind-boggling amounts of time, energy and aggression to debating punitive sanctions against Israel. The TUC should be ashamed to even be considering abandoning Israeli workers – the ‘Global Solidarity’ section of its Final Agenda is misnamed and even more miniscule than the Green Party’s Autumn Conference international business with its perennial and hostile attention to the tiny state of Israel. Why always and only Israel? is an unavoidable question without any reassuring answer, and the weird singularity of boycott activism against Israel makes most Jews feel rightly insecure. And yet it’s the only aspect of the conference I heard about on the News today, and most of the country must now think the TUC is fiddling while Rome is burnt to a crisp.

A policy of boycotting Israel is a badge of conflict for an organisation, a flat denial of the needs of Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers, nothing to do with solidarity, nothing to do with the labour movement. The TUC should vote it down and ponder instead why the Israeli workers movement might have supported action against Gaza, why it is so important to boycotters to minimise the role of Palestinians in the conflict, and what is to be done to get Israeli and Palestinian workers to recognise their shared interests in ending it.

Walking over London Bridge today, I heard the following BBC Radio 4 6 o’Clock News analysis by North America editor Mark Mardell – which I transcribe from about 19:54 – of the vitriol directed at Barack Obama ostensibly for his incendiary proposed health care reforms. I thought that what was said about this is also true for the zombie-like boycott campaign against Israel.

Preamble:

“Here in South Carolina less than a decade ago the Confederate battle flag fluttered above the state capitol building, and Congressman Joe Wilson was one of a handful of politicians who voted to keep it flying. It’s perhaps why his heckling of the president with the battle cry “You lie” has echoed across the nation, allowing a usually subterranean debate to bubble to the surface. Some feel the vitriolic contempt to President Obama in many public meetings organised by his opponents is because he’s black. Former president Jimmy Carter says it’s abominable.

[Excerpt of Carter's speech in Atlanta] “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African American ought not be President and ought not be given the same respect as if he were white, and this has permeated politics ever since I have been involved in it back to the 1960s”.

The part of Mark Mardell’s piece which resonated with the boycott campaign and its context in the history of the world’s relationship with its Jews was this:

“But many Conservatives feel that kind of talk is a smear used to stifle legitimate debate and smother heart-felt anger. It is of course very difficult to pin down the precise reasons for the fury that President Obama evokes in his opponents, and naive to think it has only one cause, but the relationship between the white majority and the black minority has been a huge factor in American politics from Civil War to civil rights and it would be extraordinary if it played no part in perceptions of America’s first black president.”

This is right, and it’s also the responsible way to view the furious hostility directed at Israel, and its attendant antisemitism.

On Mark Mardell’s blog there are already 417 responses to his question:

“So I am describing and inviting debate, not passing comment. The relationship between black and white has been such an important driving factor in American political history that it would be strange if it now mattered not a jot. The allegation is that many of those who are calling their president “un-American” mean he is not white. Democratic propaganda, over-sensitivity or truth? Tell me…”

Definitely worth a look.

Obama is resolved to take all criticism of his incendiary health care reform proposals at face value, which is very thought-provoking, but not for this post.

Update: We should congratulate the trade unionists who succeeded in reasoning boycotters away from their moribund position of total boycott. TUC statement; Brendan Barber’s speech on the subject; Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine point to the good aspects of the statement (the fostering of PGFTU-Histadrut projects); Michael Leahy speaks at the Trade Union Friends of Israel fringe meeting; Histadrut calls for peace and cooperation.

CST Antisemitic Discourse Report 2008

Dave Rich from the CST writes :

CST has long been known for recording and analysing antisemitic hate crimes: the physical assaults, desecrations, racist abuse and hate mail that make up a quantifiable measure of antisemitism. But just as, in recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that antisemitism is not restricted to the activities of street thugs and bar room racists, so it has become necessary to chart that other sort of antisemitism: the ideas, images and language that occasionally pollutes public discourse.

Read the whole piece Here.

Download the full report Here.

Organization sets up Google ad campaign to counter Israel boycott calls

Jonny Paul writes in The Jerusalem Post :

A movement set up to fight “boycott Israel” initiatives has launched an audacious advertising campaign on Google.

Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine (TULIP), which unites trade unions and nongovernmental organizations fighting the boycott of Israel, has initiated a series of keyword-based advertisements on the Internet search engine.

Someone searching for terms such as “boycott Israel” will see a link to the TULIP Web site appear above the campaigns for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the Jewish state.

Read the full article Here.

Particularism on the left, and its critics

Where is the outcry in my trade union about the murder of Iranian students by the Iranian authorities and its executors, the Basij militia? Why is Israeli state violence against Palestinian universities so much more important to UCU members in Britain than Iranian state violence against its own universities and students?

Intellectual historian Moishe Postone talked about this sort of particularism at his SOAS presentation on Monday.

Update June 30th: see Martin in the Margins’ UCU does something right (hat tip Kellie):

“On Saturday UCU general secretary Sally Hunt represented the union at a protest outside the Iranian embassy, as part of the Justice for Iranian Workers campaign.

The UCU has also condemned the Iranian government’s arrest of 70 university professors, as part of the crackdown on opposition protestors.“

Come to the fringe meeting UNISON tried to ban

No room at UNISON conference for friends of Israel

What next for Israeli-Palestinian Trade Union Cooperation?

Yes to Peace, No to Boycotts Trade Union Friends of Israel Fringe Event with:

Eric Lee, Trade Unions Linking Israel & Palestine (TULIP)

Terry McCorran, Unison Member (speaking in a personal capacity)

Chris Hudson, Peace Activist

Time: 12:45 – 2:00pm, Wednesday 17 June 2009

Venue: Regent Room, The Grand Hotel (King’s Road, 2 minutes walk from the conference centre)

Buffet lunch with tea & coffee provided All welcome

UNISON have banned TUFI (Trade Union Friends of Israel) from having a stall at its conference.  Read the story here in the Jewish Chronicle.

More from Harry’s Place:

Bill Gilby, the union’s conference organiser, said he would not describe Tufi’s absence as “a ban”. He said his conference team had received “an expression of concern” at the possibility of Tufi being offered a stall, “because of the union’s long-standing policy position on the Middle East and concern about the welfare of individuals if such a stall were to be there”.

I think I understand this correctly.

Unison fears that its members will carry out antisemitic attacks on Jews, if TUFI is permitted its customary stall.

Isn’t this precisely the sort of thing that Nick Griffin’s BNP says to ethnic and cultural minorities – “You better not turn up – for your own safety”?

This is – or certainly should be, a matter of huge concern to Unison. If it is not, then could it be that Unison is supportive of attacks on Jews at its conference?

Remember how Eric Lee was treated by UNISON?

Sean Wallis, antisemitism, Lehman Brothers, anti-boycott lawyers: when in a hole, stop digging

Here, on Harry’s Place.

Sean Wallis, UCL UCU, is still wriggling about the relationship between Lehman Brothers, anti-boycott lawyers and antisemitism

See his response to the Fair Play Campaign.

See the Fiar Play Campaign’s answer.

See Harry’s Place.

Eve Garrard and Norman Geras on Jon Pike’s resignation

Here, on normblog.