The controversy surrounding calls by British unions to boycott Israel is threatening to spill over into a major international union’s next election.
Leaders of some of America’s most powerful unions are said to be considering whether to pull support for a top British union official, Keith Sonnet, in his bid to lead a major international service workers union, Public Services International. The American union leaders are responding to last month’s passage of a resolution proposing a sweeping boycott of Israeli goods by Sonnet’s union, Unison, which represents 1.3 million public service workers.
The group that Sonnet is looking to lead, PSI, is a global federation of more than 600 unions from around the world, but the American labor movement has traditionally wielded significant power in its ranks.
As the number of British labor unions passing Israel boycott resolutions has snowballed in recent months, American trade union officials have raised alarms over the growing phenomenon, which encompasses boycotts of Israeli goods and academic institutions. Last week, nearly every top union leader in America signed on to a statement drafted by the Jewish Labor Committee decrying the raft of boycott proposals as non-constructive.
Avram Lyon, executive director of the JLC, said that Sonnet, who is running against Danish candidate Peter Waldorff for the international union post, had given assurances to American labor leaders in advance of his group’s national delegate conference that the Israel boycott measure up for consideration would either be voted down or have its teeth taken out. But the opposite came to pass, causing Sonnet’s American counterparts to feel misled, Lyon said.
“That has raised questions among some American unions as to whether or not they will support Keith Sonnet’s candidacy,” Lyon said. “The concern is based on the fact that Sonnet put forward a resolution which American unions would consider to be divisive.”
Sonnet did not return a phone call seeking comment.
In late May, Britain’s largest teachers union, the University and College Union, came one step closer to an academic boycott of Israeli academics and institutions when it passed a motion to circulate calls for the boycott to all its branches. The public service union followed suit in June when its delegates passed a far-reaching resolution that called for “an economic, cultural, academic and sporting boycott.” That resolution treaded even closer to testy political waters, proclaiming that Israel should allow the right of return for the Palestinian refugees of 1948 — a Palestinian demand that Israel has thus far been unwilling to consider at the negotiating table. In recent weeks, the Transport and General Workers’ Union became the latest British union to join the widening movement against the Jewish state, when it called for a boycott of Israeli goods.
A boycott measure proposed in April by the National Union of Journalists is the only one, thus far, to have been successfully neutralized by anti-boycott activists. In this case, union leaders reversed course, declaring that the boycott would not be implemented, after 32 union members resigned in protest and hundreds more voiced opposition. That movement was spearheaded by a British Broadcasting Corporation journalist, Rory Cellan-Jones, who coordinated his efforts from the Web site of Engage, a British coalition formed to counter Israel boycotts and antisemitism on the left.
David Hirsh, who is the editor of Engage’s Web site and a lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, said that while he lauded American anti-boycott efforts, the leaders of the boycott movement in Britain are unlikely to be swayed by American complaints.
“It should be a powerful statement that all of these leaders of the American labor movement are making against the boycott campaign, but I’m skeptical as to how effective it will be,” Hirsh said.
The roster of 29 signatories to the JLC’s statement included a broad spectrum of union leaders, who cut across religious and ethnic lines. Among the signatories to the statement were Ron Gettelfinger, president of United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America International Union, which tends to stay out of the geo-political arena; William Lucy, president of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, and Larry Cohen, president of Communications Workers of America.
Absent from the list of signatories was Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, which represents some 1.8 million service workers. An SEIU spokesman said Stern lent his support through Change To Win, a coalition of seven American unions, which signed on to the statement.
Whether or not the Americans’ robust condemnation of the British unions’ boycott measures has an effect, labor leaders here say that the concerns over Sonnet’s handling of the issue could have real consequences for his candidacy. A handful of signatories to the JLC’s anti-boycott statement — including the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — are members of PSI, which represents more than 20 million workers from 160 countries. PSI’s election is set to take place during its World Congress, held in Vienna from September 24 to 28.
At least two past PSI presidents — legendary labor leader Victor Gotbaum and AFSCME’s William Lucy — have hailed from American unions.
A source at AFT, who requested anonymity because authorization to speak for the union had not been granted, said that its four delegates to the PSI congress would weigh the Israel boycott issue heavily. “I’m sure there are going to be a lot of people asking questions about Keith Sonnet’s view of the resolution adopted by Unison,” the source said.
According to Lyon, another American effort to stymie the British boycott movement met with success this week, when American unions torpedoed efforts by the UCU to introduce an Israel boycott resolution at the world congress of Education International, a worldwide federation of teachers’ unions, held this past week in Berlin.
I sent a link to the article to the British web site Engage which has been at the forefront in the fight against boycotts of Israel. Their web site can be found here: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/ I hope we can start an across the ocean dialogue between these two websites.
The solution to this problem is to boycott British goods. We cannot discount the Arab influence in England, home to many Musllims. Perhaps the time of "Eurabia" is not far away. This boycott of Israel is also a measure of support for terrorism. England should be ashamed.
I know in the past I always was very fond of England and went out of my way to buy British goods. Not any more. I don't buy anything British anymore.
The actions of British unions should not be a surprise! Oswald Mosley was a Labour Party MP and the husband of one of the Mitford sisters--the one who found Hitler "charming." Ernest Bevin, the anti-Semite Foreign Minister who sent Jewish refugees attempting to enter what was then called Palestine back to camps in Germany. He rose in politics through the British labor "movement." The assumption that labor leaders are our allies is false, and John L. Lewis's history places that falsity to the forefront. The reason Mr. Sonnet pulled the wool over the eyes of those JLC people is that they wanted the wool pulled there. All elements of the Jewish community better face the fact that the Left, including the Democrat Party, is our enemy and end delusions of any alliance with it!
I think that it's absurd to charge that "labor leaders" are not the friends of Jews, given the fact that so many labor leaders, even in countries with proportionately far smaller Jewish populations than the US, were Jews. Jewish people care about what labor unions do precisely because Jews have historically been so active in the labor movement--Jewish modernity was largely the accomplishment of the Jewish labor movement. It is equally mistaken to lay the blame for the British boycott movement on British Muslims, who are not only politically weak and relatively unorganized, but also mostly non-Arab; they may not be fans of Israel politically, but they are not the ones causing the problem. Rather, the problem is plain, old-fashioned British anti-Semitism, tarted out in the politically correct garment of "anti-Zionism." The people calling for the boycott of all things Israeli today are the grandchildren of the people calling for the doors to close on Jewish participation in private clubs, the Parliament, the press, etc., 70 years ago. They are awfully fond of tradition, some of these Brits, but often very dim on matters of history and memory. Nonetheless, the answer to their vitriol is not boycotting, which in England as in Israel will only hurt the most defenseless and unjustly singled out segment of the population. The proper response, as the name and agenda of the best British anti-boycott website states, is "engage."
Sir John Mosely (I am not sure if I spelled his named right)the British Nazi leader left a legacy of anti-semitism for these moronic "labor" leaders. There was a time when British labor leaders were humanists but that has apparently long past. They have had it too good for the last 50 years and have resufaced as fascists.
To celebrate Eurabia all members of British unions boycotting Israel should adopt the wearing of a head scarf as an outward sign of their conviction.
Wonderful parade of evasive ignorance and paranoia on the part of your readers. The only reason there is any traction whatever for a boycott of israel in the UK is because of disgust at Israel's 60-year persecution of the Palestinians. All these fancy theories about 'Eurabia' and why the Brits are all Nazis at heart- do me a favour, as we say! And take a look at the actual actions of the state American Jews are afraid to criticise except behind closed doors. British Jews are a lot less herd-like, a lot less intimidated by the Dershowitzes and Foxmans. Indeed some of the leading organisers of the boycott are Jews who reject the equation of being politically Zionist with being an echt Jew. Zionism is only a passing phase in the long history of the Jewish people, a blasphemous and futile cul de sac.
Addendum to my note just now... The name should be Oswald Moseley not John! Sorry
David L. Nilsson's clownishly self-parodying posting demonstrates everything I was saying about the obliviousness of British anti-Zionists toward history: the issue for him is ostensibly "60 years of Israeli persecution of Palestinians"--as if such persecution occurred in a vacuum; as if violence and repression has ever been a one-way street in the Middle East. "Zionism is a passing phase" in Jewish history: how is this anything other than a sweetly-phrased rehash of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's talk about wiping Israel off the map? Israel is certainly fair game for criticism, and when American Jews are too timid to take the lead there are of course plenty of Israelis themselves willing to take the upper hand; they do so much more articulately and fairly than most European anti-Zionists do. Europeans in particular fail to realize that what Israel has managed to do is a fairly convincing imitation of their own nation-states: like England or France, to take the best examples, Israel has established a reasonably democratic, more-or-less egalitarian society for its own citizens, while being yoked to a colonial system in territories acquired by military conquest. But where Algeria was separated from France by the Mediterranean, and India from England by a half-world a way, Israel's colonial possessions are in their own backyard. I suspect that West European anti-Zionists hate Israel so pathologically because they see in Israel a reflection of everything they dislike and are ashamed of in their own socieites... I don't like the occupation--the majority of Israelis don't like it either. But a solution to this occupation can only be achieved, obviously, by the Israelis and the Palestinians themsevles--it can't be coerced or bullied or argued into existence. And the boycott so passionately supported in England will do NOTHING to help the Palestinians--it will only make the peace camp on both sides of the fence more embattled, more isolated, and more imperiled....
Bravo, David L Nilsson. And may the British boycott expand, flourish... and succeed. And may my clueless countrymen cease and desist from opposition to it. Remember MLK? Sing it! "We shall overcome (our ignorance) some day-ay-ay-ay-aaaay..." It's like, End the Occupation, Stupids!!! (It's... like... humane? Ethical? Civilized? Evolved?)
John Gray is wrong in stating that "the motion calling for boycott, disinvestment etc was rejected by UNISON." As noted on June 20th here, http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1163 , UNISON, the public service workers' union in the UK, has voted today, by a majority of roughly 4-1, to support the campaign to boycott Israel. Motion 53 includes the following: "Conference believes that ending the occupation demands concerted and sustained pressure upon Israel including an economic, cultural, academic and sporting boycott." It also says, using the usual code, that it is for the dismantling of Israel and it opposes a two state solution: "Conference continues to consider that a just solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict ... should: ... 2) allow the refugees of 1948 to return home ...
David L Nilsson said: “Wonderful parade of evasive ignorance and paranoia on the part of your readers. You are the ignorant one, Nilsson. “The only reason there is any traction whatever for a boycott of israel in the UK is because of disgust at Israel's 60-year persecution of the Palestinians.” The reason for the boycott call is antisemitism, pure and simple. If persecution were the issue than there would be boycott calls against many other countries in the world including all the Muslims countries which persecute Jews among other non Muslim populations. The idea that Jews persecute “Palestinians” moreover is an utter and complete lie. “All these fancy theories about 'Eurabia' and why the Brits are all Nazis at heart- do me a favour, as we say! And take a look at the actual actions of the state American Jews are afraid to criticise except behind closed doors.” What illiterate rubbish. “British Jews are a lot less herd-like, a lot less intimidated by the Dershowitzes and Foxmans.” Oh yes, I am intimidated by the “Dershowitzes and Foxmans.” What a laugh. “Indeed some of the leading organisers of the boycott are Jews who reject the equation of being politically Zionist with being an echt Jew.” More ignorant nonsense. The so called Jews (self haters all) who favor the boycott are a tiny minority. Most British Jews support Israel and the two State solution and re fighting the boycott calls. “Zionism is only a passing phase in the long history of the Jewish people, a blasphemous and futile cul de sac.” Zionism is as old as the Babylonian exile and is at the heart of the Jewish religion. This is another one of your ignorant comments and shows how little you know about Jews Nilsson.
Sandrine said: “Bravo, David L Nilsson. And may the British boycott expand, flourish... and succeed. And may my clueless countrymen cease and desist from opposition to it.” Another ignorant antisemite. The antisemitic boycott will not only fail it will strengthen the Jewish resolve both in Britain and around the world to fight for Israel and for a just peace. “Remember MLK? Sing it! "We shall overcome (our ignorance) some day-ay-ay-ay-aaaay..." You are the ignorant bigot Sandrine. Martin Luther King was a strong supporter of Israel and he had declared that opposition to the Jewish State was motivated by anti-Semitism. “It's like, End the Occupation, Stupids!!! (It's... like... humane? Ethical? Civilized? Evolved?)” It’s like, and the violence, stupid, and accept the two State solution. You should be directing your call to your Palestinian Arab rejectionist friends.
Have the British specified the reason/s for this proposed boycott?
Sam Munafo said: "Have the British specified the reason/s for this proposed boycott?" It's all here, Sam http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/ check it out.
"Sandrine" applauds "David L Nilsson"'s posting without bothering to read or understand it: when he complains about Zionism, he's not talking about the Occupation, he's talking about the existence of the State of Israel, per se; the Occupation for him, like all anti-Zionists, is not a cancer that has overtaken Israeli society, it is Israeli society in its essence and at its purpose. "Robbins" is of course correct in pointing out the repulsive irony of Sandrine evoking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in this context, given Dr. King's lifelong devotion to Israel and other Jewish causes--even at the expense of his "street cred" among contemporaneous Black radicals toward the end of his career. In general, there is a useful distinction to be considered: it's OK, regardless of what the Foxmans or Dershowitzes of the world may say, to criticize Israel; Israelis criticize their own country all the time--sometimes to the point even of affecting political change (e.g., the pullout from Southern Lebanon in 2000; the pullout from Gaza in 2005...). But when Israelis criticize Israel, it is precisely to affect political change, to make Israel a better and more democratic place. When anti-Zionists criticize Israel, it is to de-legitimize Israel's right to existence. "Sandrine" would be well advised to consider the difference, as would "David L Nilsson." As would Foxman and Dershowitz....
Marc Brukhes said: "But when Israelis criticize Israel, it is precisely to affect political change, to make Israel a better and more democratic place. When anti-Zionists criticize Israel, it is to de-legitimize Israel's right to existence. "Sandrine" would be well advised to consider the difference, as would "David L Nilsson." As would Foxman and Dershowitz...." True, but even Dershowitz has said on many occasions that it's ok to criticize Israeli policies but not to criticize its existence. I would assume that even Mr. Foxman would agree with that.
Firstly, a couple of corrections. When it is specified that the number of UK unions proposing boycotts of Israel has snowballed, it should be pointed out that an actual boycott has been endorsed by only two unions at the time of writing. Secondly, the UCU is a lecturers union, not a teaching union. That aside, what British trade unionists are seeking is for a sane and rationale examination of Israel's policies which continue to annex large parts of Palestian territory and consign the Palestians to even greater poverty. That is not in any way to excuse of seek to jusify the actions of Palestian militants which continue to bear horrific consequences for the Israeli people, but it is to look at ways in which Israel can secure its security on a long term basis. As we discovered in Northern Ireland, security will not be achieved whilst the oppresed continue to be subjugated to ever greater suffering. Only by addressing the real grievances of the Catholic population did we finally manage to achieve an end result which largely ended violence. This will not be achieved by a continued land grab which occurs in spite of numerous UN resolutions, and it is for that reason that British trade unionists are supporting a boycott. As for the comment that only jews can critise Israel, it is the type of comment that illustrates exactly the kind of fingers in the ear denial that prevents such an important topic being discussed in the first place. Luckily must rationale people will see it as the ridiculous proposition that it is
Hang on folks - the motion calling for boycott, disinvestment etc was rejected by UNISON (it was not prioritised by its NEC or its conference delegates). There was of course the usual vague, uncommittal "bash Israel ignore Palestine extremists motion” but no one pays any attention to that one. So, not UNISON’s finest hour, but nothing like some mischief makers are making out.
Andy writes, "what British trade unionists are seeking is for a sane and rationale examination of Israel's policies which continue to annex large parts of Palestian territory and consign the Palestians to even greater poverty." This is a laudable goal--I for one would welcome a sane and rational examination of just about anything that happens where either Israel or Palestine is concerned. It's not clear to me, at all, however, how a call for boycott would achieve the goals of either rational discourse or a lowering of the current rhetorical violence (to say nothing of the far more egregious physical kind...). Boycotts in general are bad ideas, and this boycott in particular is ill-considered, not only because it calls for no corresponding pressure to be placed on Palestinian rejectionists (there are a few, by the way...) but because it offers no incentive by which either Israelis or Palestinians might be encouraged to engage with one another. Moreover, with respect particularly to the calls for an academic boycott of Israel, the real victims of this campaign, Israeli scholars and scientists, are precisely the demographic in need of engagement with the outside world: the Academy as such is one of the real triumphs of Israeli culture, not only because of its intellectual caliber but also because of the degree to which the Academy has created a meritocracy that includes Arabs and other ethnic minoriities in addition to Jews. And of course, Israeli academics are just as likely to be left-wing and in favor of accomodation as academics in other cultures. Is a professor at, for example, Haifa University--with a student population that is more than 30% Arab--committed to the prospect of a free and independent Palestine, really the best recipient of the British Academy's opprobrium? Such a professor does more for Arab-Israeli coexistence just by doing his or her job than the entire boycott movement dedicated to marginalizing his or her career, institution, and society.... Finally, with respect to the suggestion that only Jews can criticize Israel: well Andy, I agree that that's a stupid idea, and I'm gratified to note that no one on this site has proposed it. Non-Jews have a right to criticize Israel just as non-Americans have a right to criticize George W. Bush, or non-Sudanese have a right to condemn what's going on in Darfur. I was furious when the late Edward Said condemned the Oslo accords before the ink was even dry on them; it turns out, though, that every one of his critiques was correct, as was his prediction that the agreement would do nothing to alleviate the day-to-day suffering of Palestinians living under occupation. As much as his analysis spoke "truth to power," to invoke an expression we heard more often in the 90s than today, what affects me most about his legacy was the speaking tour of Israel and Palestine he embarked on at the end of his life with Daniel Barenboim. To reiterate a point I've been making throughout this thread, it's not the question of criticizing Israel that should be at issue, it's the intent and tone of the criticism that changes morally neutral anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism--and Edward Said was, demonstrably, no anti-Semite. By the way, after Said's death, Daniel Barenboim was asked about Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Barenboim is said to have said, "I don't know why everyone's congratulating Israel for the withdrawal--they shouldn't have been there in the first place," a comment my non-Jewish, British brother-in-law thought a lot of when he heard it. By analogy, I would suggest that there's no sense in crediting Abe Lincoln for the Emancipation Proclamation since, after all, there never should have been slavery in the first place. If one can't distinguish between progress and reaction or moral actions from immoral ones, then there's no such thing as history. This is a mistake that I'm quite confident that Edward Said would not have made--though I'm equally confident that he would have harbored no romantic feelings toward Ariel Sharon or Gaza's prospects after the Israeli pullout. Nonetheless, I raise the example because in this instance, the Palestinian was a fairer and more cogent critic than the Israeli....
British Parliament debate on antismeitism on Video: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Player/index.aspx?Encoding=7302
The boycott of Israeli goods and academics by British labor unions and others is neither anti-semitic nor "against the Jewish state"; it is against the Israeli government's 40 year illegal and inhumane OCCUPATION of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza & East Jerusalem. The only NONVIOLENT way to end this oppressive injustice against the Palestinian people seems to be to boycott and divest from Israel. This is what brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa and this is what will bring down the equally discriminatroy and apartheid regime in Israel! This is a call for respecting international law and morality, not anit-semitism! If you don't believe me, spend some time in the West Bank yourself, as I did last summer, and you will see the concrete Wall winding INSIDE the West Bank (NOT the border!)that is twice as high as the Berlin wall, the Palestinian olive trees that have been deliberately chopped down for miles from any road or buildings, and their homes that have been bulldozed to rubble for no reason other than land greed by some Israelis. You will realize that Israeli's saying "we must do this for security purposes" is a lie; there is no security in tearing down people's homes and farms, building walls through their neighborhoods, and forcing them to wait hours or drive miles out of their way to deal with checkpoints! These actions are aggressive racist cruelty, not defensive security measures! If you don't believe me go hear and see for yourself before you call me anti-semitic!
To:David L Nilsson: Your England was the country that kicked out the Jews. Your England kept Jews out of Palestine, and sent them back to their deaths, etc., etc. Who are you kidding? Your England thought you were doing the right thing back then, and England, of course, was not. Your England has a whole history of anti-Semitism and aid to the Arabs against the Jews (and some help to Jews too, but, far to little). You're a stupid, vapid moron with the thought process of a buffoon. You deserve no more evidenciary response to your inchoate argument than this short missive.
Go US-Unions Go! Show them old-europe bumheads, those willing executives of Hamas and Nasrallah, what emancipation and class struggle means!
I have visited your site 321-times
Your site found in Google: http://google.com/search?q=uvn
I WANT TO ENTER IN PALESTIAN. SO PLEASE I WANT SPONSERSHIP FROM YOU, I AND MY FRIEND Franco Gomes.
Boycott Bullies bro Mar. 27th, 2008 | 01:54 pm location: Ireland http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18236.htm http://brianclarkenuj.livejournal.com/#entry_5440 United , Peaceful , Boycott. Spread The Word , Pass it on ! http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqdubabiespix.html#DUBABIESPIX Boycott the USA and Israel War Crimes Now ! Please, share with your friends !
Uh oh. Does this mean as a staunch supporter of Israel I have to stop watching my beloved Liverpool Football Club? How about if I watch but just not cheer when Israeli footballer, Yossi Benayoun scores for the 'pool?
Dear Ms. Stowe,
Please educate us all as to how Israel came to control the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Thank you.
David