Sep 18, 2009

British trade unions to boycott Israeli goods
By JONNY PAUL JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
London


Britain's Trades Union Congress has approved a call for a targeted, consumer-led boycott and sanctions campaign against Israel and to work closely with a radical anti-Israel group.

The decision was announced on Thursday at the 6.5-million member labor federation's annual conference in Liverpool.

The new policy calls on the British government to condemn the "Israeli military aggression and the continuing blockade of Gaza," and to end arms sales to Israel, which it said totaled £18.8 million in 2008.

It also advocates a ban on import of goods originating in settlements and an end to the European Union's preferential trading terms for Israel.


The approval came as a compromise, replacing a much harsher motion, put forward by the Fire Brigade Union and approved, that called for a complete boycott of Israeli goods and urged the TUC to "carry out a review" of its relationship with the Histadrut Labor Federation for not condemning Operation Cast Lead.

Announcing the compromise, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said:
"The General Council (GC) has worked hard to come up with a statement which the congress can unite around... What you have before you sets out principles we can all share, conclusions I hope we can all agree on and actions we can all take."



Barber made clear that the TUC supports a form of boycott, saying it believes in "targeted action" aimed at goods originating from the settlements. "The GC has considered what can be done by us to apply pressure to the Israeli government to make the end of the occupation, the dismantling of the separation wall and removal of illegal settlements more likely," he said.

"We believe that targeted action - aimed at goods from the illegal settlements and at companies involved in the occupation and the wall - is the right way forward."

Barber added: "This is not a call for a general boycott of Israeli goods and services, which would hit ordinary Palestinian and Israeli workers, but targeted, consumer-led sanctions directed at businesses based in, and sustaining, the illegal settlements."

This was reiterated in the GC compromise statement: "To increase the pressure for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the removal of the separation wall and 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 (PSC) - and campaign for disinvestment by companies associated with the occupation as well as engaged in building the separation wall."

The GC said that each union affiliate would operate autonomously in interpreting the boycott, and it encouraged affiliation to the PSC.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish Leadership Council issued a joint statement condemning the move.

"The fact that within moments of this statement being released, conference delegates voted for another extreme hard-line pro-boycott motion proposed by the FBU [Fire Brigade Union] is evidence that our concerns are well placed, and that TUC leaders must act against the harmful influence of the PSC within their unions. We insist that TUC leaders immediately clarify that this motion does not stand as TUC policy."

On Wednesday Britain's largest trade union, Unite, along with the largest public sector trade union, Unison, said they would back the Fire Brigade Union motion. However the National Union of General and Municipal Workers opposed it, calling it "incredibly divisive."

Senior National Union of General and Municipal Workers official Paul Kenny described the boycott call as "way beyond the logic of where we should be."

After the Fire Brigade Union motion passed, the TUC General Council replaced it with the compromise policy.

The General Council statement condemned rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli citizens but welcomed the Goldstone Report.

The Trade Union Friends of Israel welcomed the compromise, which it said would increase TUC support for Israeli and Palestinian trade unions that are opposed to boycotts.

"Over 50,000 Palestinians working in Israel could lose their jobs as a result of a boycott, as well as many British workers producing exports to Israel. Today's statement shows that a majority of trade unions in the UK want to provide meaningful help to the people in Israel and Palestine, rather than call for divisive and counterproductive boycotts. The sensible voices of the TUC have prevailed," said Roger Lyons, chairman of Trade Union Friends of Israel and a former TUC president.

"In particular, the TUC has highlighted its commitment to support both Israeli and Palestinian trade unions and has welcomed a recent policy statement by the Histadrut, which outlined the federation's support for Palestinian workers' rights and a two-state solution," Lyons added.

The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council said they would respond to the new TUC policy with a three-pronged track. "Firstly, we will be asking the TUC leadership to act swiftly and decisively to reassert their opposition to a boycott of Israel, and advise their member unions accordingly. We expect the GC's statement to be used as a license to boycott by anti-Israel activists.

"Secondly, we will actively expose the discriminatory politics of the PSC, in order to frustrate their hijacking of trade unions to promote their anti-Israel and anti-peace agenda.

"Thirdly, we will be encouraging members of our own community to fight back, by getting involved in trade unions and speaking out."

Israeli Ambassador Ron Proser also condemned the boycott stance.

"The TUC's leaders should hang their heads in shame at this reckless call. They have betrayed their own constituency by allowing the TUC to be hijacked as a political tool for extremists. This one-sided approach subjects the State of Israel to a despicable double standard not experienced by any other nation, including dictatorships such as Libya, which recently celebrated the return of a convicted mass murderer," he said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253198149772&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


(I love the spin. Instead of a saying pro-Palestinian group, it's a radical anti-Israel group.)

They caused the mess, by creating phony "countries" and installing puppet governments. Then we should boycott US goods, since the US picked up where the British left off and protects and props up a gaggle of corrupt and autocratic regimes for the benefit of the capitalists, and at our expense as well as the expense of the Arabic people.

Come to think of it, I guess we already are boycotting US and British goods, since the capitalists moved manufacturing to China and everything we buy is from there now.

Boycotts are much more likely to harm the working people, the poor people, in the targeted country then they are to have any effect on the rulers.

TA, that might all be true about boycotts, but the over riding issue here is that more are beginning to recognize that Israel has been both manipulative, far too aggressive and has overplayed their hand against their underdog neighbors. They (Israel) needs reigned in. Their goal instead of peace is more likely long term controlled turmoil that allows them to manipulate public opinion and grab land.

There are certain philosophical beliefs that can be changed once an individual starts to question the integrity for the basis of those underlying beliefs....such as the belief that Israel is only defending itself. Some call it an epiphany.

Nothing new or interesting about that, though.

Talking with the immgrants from Yugoslavia during the fighting there, it was clear that ALL sides thought they were merely defending themselves and that the others were the aggressors. That was so clear cut in those discussions that I think it is a general, perhaps universal rule.

Israel is also not unusual in being supported by the US in its aggression. That is virtually the entire story of Latin America, for example.

That doesn't excuse anything that the Israeli government has or is doing. It does illiustrate that we need a much tighter and more logical basis for our criticism, though, that takes into account the larger context, that does not give the US government actions everywhere else a de facto pass, and that does not become a vector for the introduction of anti-Semitic and libertarian talking points, the traditonal stomping ground of the extreme right wing.

Why is there so much resistance to the adoption of those simple and constructive guidelines?

is that Americans and especially our political leaders have been brainwashed for years by the media, AIPAC, ADL and other pro-zionist organizations into believing that one should think twice before criticizing Israel.

It is an implied threat that has resulted in a US government policy of unquestioned support and billions of borrowed taxpayer dollars that have subsidized and allowed Israel to run a muck.

How did that all come about? I don't remember Americans feeling queazy about criticizing the French or any other ally who provided us with real (not virtual) aid to us during our formative years and in our subsequent many wars. Yet the French became a target by the US right wing when they refused to support what some legitimately claim has been a war against Iraq but a war for Israel.

If any country or group should have free reign to candidly criticize the action of Israelis it should be we Americans who pay billions in aid and were instrumental in freeing those in the Holocaust. Sorry TA but I don't buy into a belief that Americans need to dance on the head of a pin, or "provide a tighter and more logical basis for criticism" to ensure that it isn't taken as A-S.

Israel is a country that some claim is our ally. I have no compunction about criticizing any of our allies when I believe their actions are not in our interests and neither should any American or politician.