• UCU Congress begins this weekend, running from 30th May – 1st June, in Manchester
• This year, UCU Congress will debate three motions that relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

• The first of these, SFC14, encourages the Union to build links with Palestinian academics and unions

• The second motion, SFC15, is called “Palestinian Solidarity, BDS, and Histadrut”
• It reaffirms UCU’s support for the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel “within legal constraints”
• It forces UCU to establish and fund a “research centre into complicity with Israeli breaches”, a BDS website, and an annual pro-boycott conference
• It demands UCU severs all ties with the Histadrut, the Israeli TUC
• An amendment to this motion would refer the decision on Histadrut to a special committee

• The third motion, SFC16 “Ariel and West Bank Colonisation”, formally starts the procedure to institute an academic boycott against Ariel College

• Additionally, a motion SFC17, called “UCU invitation to Bongani Masuku of South Africa”, comes from Oxford University’s UCU branch
• It was submitted in response to UCU’s invitation of Bongani Masuku to a UCU boycott conference this winter
• It dissociates UCU from his views and actions, and formally censures those who invited Masuku to the conference

• Stop the Boycott’s 2007 polling showed that the Union’s membership is largely moderate and neutral on the Middle East
• However, UCU Congress is always unrepresentatively hostile to Israel and has a record of supporting discriminatory policies

• If the motion “Palestinian Solidarity, BDS, and Histadrut” passes, UCU will be converting itself from a Trade Union into am organisation focused on promoting division and discrimination
• Sally Hunt holds the international portfolio on the Trades Union Congress’ General Council
• She cannot hold this position, which requires her to work closely with the Histadrut, while her Union is undermining these ties

Donate Here to support Stop the Boycott.

Sent: 08 December 2009 18:50
To: UCU activists e-group
Subject: [activists] speakers at UCU meetings

I believe that UCU does genuinely try to put equality at the heart of everything it does, which does not mean that mistakes do not occasionally happen. In general, everyone to whom we provide a platform as part of a UCU event should have a positive record on equality issues or at least not be guilty of making prejudiced or otherwise hate-motivated public statements. I am not suggesting that we vet speakers. However, when information about speakers becomes available we should evaluate it to determine both its reliability and seriousness. With regards to the reliability of the information its source is particularly important.

In this case of Mr Masuku, an invitation to the international secretary of a Congress of Trade Unions should not have been problematical. However, when further information became available from the South African Human Rights Commission we should have acted on this, unless we felt that there had been a miscarriage of justice or that the SAHRC is not a reputable body. I am assuming it is, though willing to be corrected on this. When a speaker who had made homophobic comments was invited to a stop the war conference that we were involved with, we and other trade unions very rightly made representations to stop the war and the speaker was withdrawn.

Her queries are well-made. We would answer some of her comments:

• Mr Masuku’s remarks were publicly available all over the Internet and reported in the South African media. In a Google-search for “Bongani Masuku”, the first result is a report of these remarks, dated March.
• Mr Masuku was proactively invited by UCU to attend the private boycott conference. This was not a situation where UCU simply failed to do its research; it must have done some research on Mr Masuku, otherwise why invite him in the first place?
• Mr Masuku has not denied making the comments in question. He can’t, as some of them are in writing and some of them were recorded at the time.
• The South African Human Rights Commission is a respected body in South Africa, run by veteran anti-apartheid campaigners and human rights lawyers. It is a key part of the post-apartheid settlement in South Africa.

Gavin Reid is a pro-boycott campaigner and UCU activist who chaired the BRICUP event in Leeds last night. Mr Masuku was originally supposed to speak at the event but he didn’t turn up. Gavin Reid answered the UCU Activist above as follows:

Gavin Reid
To: UCU activists e-group
Subject: RE: [activists] speakers at UCU meetings

I chaired a meeting tonight in Leeds ‘Israel, the Palestinians and Apartheid’. Around 200 people attended from the Yorkshire region to listen to speakers from ANC, Cosatu, War on Want and the Palestinian campaign for BDS. I can assure the list that everybody at the meeting contributed with respect for each other’s positions, indeed I made it a requirement of their continuing presence at the meeting. In case the question arises, Leeds UCU did not contribute any funds to the meeting and a collection was taken to cover costs.

Mr Masuku was not present as he has since returned to South Africa via Botswana at the weekend. I understand that he categorically denies any accusations of racism and that Cosatu has issued a statement relating to this in SA today. It goes without saying, I hope, that UCU would not share any platform with any known racist. I certainly would not do so either.

I further understand that the position adopted by the SA Human Rights Commission was apparently taken without Mr Masuku being allowed to refute the ‘charges’ and is, therefore, likely to be subject to legal action in SA. Certainly there will need to be a more careful analysis than that currently being presented as fact by others.

The Pro-Israel lobby tried unsuccessfully to have the meeting banned on the basis of the reports of Mr Masuku’s position. The University of Leeds has a protocol on Freedom of Expression that has provided a strong framework for ‘controversial’ meetings to take place, despite making an almost prohibitively expensive charge for the use of the room!

Mr Reid’s response gives a misleading impression. He says (above):

“I further understand that the position adopted by the SA Human Rights Commission was apparently taken without Mr Masuku being allowed to refute the ‘charges’”

Note the scare-quotes around the word ‘charges’. But the SAHRC Ruling, available online since Friday and in the possession of UCU, speaks clearly in paragraphs 23 and 25 about:

“[Masuku's] response to the allegations put to him by the South African Human Rights Commission”

He also says (above)

“I understand that he categorically denies any accusations of racism”

Mr Masuku does not deny making the comments, comments found by the SAHRC to be Hate Speech. Does UCU believe that someone accused of racist Hate Speech has to actually admit that his comments were racist before it will take action?

As British Jewish community organisations, we believe that racism in all its forms must be confronted. We have a history of working together with allies throughout British civil society, to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and respect where racists are unable to succeed.

We are appalled that the University and College Union brought Bongani Masuku to Britain. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) recently found that Mr. Masuku’s statements amounted to hate speech against Jews and Israelis. Furthermore, the SAHRC found that he “surely intended to incite violence and hatred”.

UCU hosted Mr Masuku, the International Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, as a participant in a ‘private’ conference on boycotting Israel. During his visit to the UK for this conference, Mr Masuku is also touring the country to promote a boycott of Israel on university campuses.

As the largest Union in Further and Higher Education and a self-proclaimed campaigner against racism, it is irresponsible and grossly offensive of UCU to bring Bongani Masuku to the UK, given his track record.

UCU has chosen to connect its boycott activities to antisemitism by hosting a man who was found to have engaged in hate speech against Jews. It was unacceptable for UCU to ignore Mr Masuku’s well-publicised remarks before choosing to invite him. The scornful dismissal by UCU of Jewish concerns over the presence of Masuku on British campuses is simply not good enough.

Every year since it was founded, UCU’s Congress has voted to boycott Israeli academics. As well as harming both Israelis and Palestinians and putting up unnecessary barriers to peace, such a boycott effectively discriminates against Jews, both in Israel and in the UK. UCU’s own legal advice says that a boycott of Israeli academics “run[s] a serious risk of infringing discrimination legislation” and “would be unlawful and cannot be implemented”.

Given this, UCU’s decision to organise and fund an Israeli boycott conference is bizarre in the extreme. A UCU invitation to Mr Masuku, presumably to share his experience and expertise on the boycott is especially troubling as, in addition to the recent SAHRC finding, he has called for the targeting of “any business owned by Israel supporters” in South Africa – a term that includes most Jewish-owned businesses.

UCU’s hosting of Masuku and their refusal to engage with the concerns of the Jewish community follows a pattern: the Union refused to address the resignations of large numbers of Jewish academics from UCU in recent years, and summarily rejected members’ complaints of antisemitism. UCU has allowed its politics on Israel to override the concerns of its Jewish members and students. It appears that UCU simply does not care about the anti-Jewish impact of its activities.

It is now hard to see how UCU can continue to play a constructive role in the Government Group on Antisemitism and Higher Education when its latest actions are likely to encourage antisemitism. The Government should review UCU’s membership of this group as it has failed to oppose antisemitism inside its own structures. UCU cannot credibly be a part of the solution to antisemitism while its activities are encouraging the problem.

Bongani Masuku has made inflammatory and threatening statements against the South African Jewish community because of their support for Israel. Alana Pugh-Jones of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies says:

Specifically, Masuku had openly and repeatedly stated that COSATU would target Jewish supporters of Israel and “make their lives hell” and urged that “every Zionist must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine”.

Ami on Harry’s Place highlighted more examples of Masuku’s threats, and ENGAGE reported that South African Human Rights Commission ruled that Masuku’s comments are Hate Speech. If Masuku does not apologise within 15 days, the Human Rights Commission will take him to court. The commission found:

The comments and statements made are of an extreme nature that advocate and imply that the Jewish and Israeli community are to be despised, scorned, ridiculed and thus subjecting them to ill-treatment on the basis of their religious affiliation.  A prima facie case of hate speech is clearly established as the statements and comments by Mr. Masuku are offensive and unpalatable to society.

Fair Play can now reveal that Bongani Masuku is actually coming to Britain as a guest of UCU.

UCU is hosting a conference on Saturday to strategise on how best to boycott Israel. The agenda of the conference is a secret. The venue is a secret, as are the speakers and attendees. UCU has not told its own membership about the conference and has refused requests for further information – perhaps the conference itself was supposed to be a secret too.

However, we have learnt that Bongani Masuku is one of the invited speakers, along with Kasrils and Barghouti. The BRICUP tour is only an “spin-off” event. UCU has indicated that is paying for international visitors to the conference; this would mean that it is paying for Masuku’s visit to Britain.

We are shocked that UCU would host someone like Masuku, who incites violence against Jews in his home country, as an honoured guest. However, we are not surprised. At its annual conference this year, UCU voted not to investigate why so many of its Jewish members had resigned. One of the arguments against this proposed investigation was that it would undermine the Union’s ability to campaign for the Palestinians.

So UCU members’ subscription money is being used, we believe, to pay for Bongani Masuku to spread his incitement in the UK. UCU is trying to keep this a secret from its own members. UCU is running closed-door strategy meetings on a boycott of Israel, despite its own repeated legal advice that “making a call to boycott Israeli institutions would run a serious risk of infringing discrimination legislation“ and therefore “an academic boycott of Israel would be unlawful and cannot be implemented“. And Bongani Masuku is a key guest at this conference.

UCU no longer has any credibility as an anti-racist organisation.

This is significant. Despite all of the noise generated by UCU’s pro-boycott policies in the UK, University Vice-Chancellors and managements have universally opposed a boycott of Israel. If NNTU passes this policy, it would be the first mainstream university in Europe to support a boycott of Israel.

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East has a petition which academics are signing to oppose the boycott. If you are an academic, click here to sign it.

£365,000 has been allocated to some really interesting projects, including:

• Research into Aramaic magical texts, a joint project of Southampton and Tel Aviv universities
• A project by Tel Aviv University and Imperial College looking at how the nose helps fight germs
• UCL and the Weizmann Institute’s work on understanding motor neuron diseases
• Research into Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease by Ben Gurion and Leeds universities

…and many more – full list here.

In response, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said:

“I very much welcome the announcement of the grants for fifteen collaborative research projects involving Israeli and UK universities. The variety and diversity of these successful bids reflect the strong nature of the UK-Israel bilateral relationship. It was an honour for me launch the scheme in July 2008, together with the Israeli Prime Minister, and my government continues to support and actively encourage academic links between the UK and Israel.”

The piece opens with a criticism of the ‘apartheid’ analogy as applied to Israel:

For some, the apartheid accusation is the way to destroy Israel. If Israel can be linked with apartheid then it can be denounced as illegitimate as was white-ruled South Africa and hence be wide open to international sanctions.

Those who pursue this couldn’t care less about facts. They have an agenda and are unscrupulous about distortion, lying and exaggeration. Their ultimate purpose is exposed by how they answer a basic question: whether or not they accept the fact of Israel’s existence.

And it ends with what supporters of peace should be doing instead of calling for boycotts:

In the case of Israel, resorting to mass boycotts is an admission of failure. It’s a cathartic response to despair and floundering. Israelis have turned their backs on Gordon so he blindly lashes out.

Yet there is an alternative. It’s old-fashioned: educate and persuade. There is already a head start: opinion polls consistently show a majority of Israelis – and Palestinians too – accept a two-state solution as the means to peace. That must be built on: convince Israelis that they are not going to be murdered and thrown into the sea, and that their children – not only Gordon’s two sons – can look forward to a secure future. Convince them that the world – or at least much of it – does not view them as more evil than any other people but wishes them well. Encourage and help maximum contact and co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians.

It’s often boring, tedious work, with results that are not always immediately apparent. But it’s an affirmation of hope about what can be achieved.

Pogrund’s piece is a masterful and compelling argument against boycotts and in favour of engagement. We really have nothing to add. Read it all.

In an article on the SPME website, Dr Howard Kahn and Prof. Ashley Grossman ask:

The fact that SPME-UK will now be working closely with FPCG will mean that we will be able to react quickly to any expressions of anti-Israeli, antisemitic and anti-Zionist behaviour. We will also be able to operate against calls for boycotts, including academic boycotts. SPME will be able to use its resources in the UK and internationally to help the activities of FPCG, while FPCG will be able to assist SPME in many of its endeavours.

But we need YOU to provide SPME-UK with as much involvement and support as possible if we are to meet the aims we have set ourselves – to inform, motivate, and encourage academics to use their skills and disciplines on campus, in classrooms and lecture theatres, and in academic publications, to develop effective responses to ideological distortions, including antisemitic, anti-Zionist, and anti-Muslim slanders, that poison debate and work against peace.

If you are an academic you can join their network.  To find out how, read the full article here.

I think there’s something else we need to do which is to say to our academics in this country that boycotts of Israel are completely unacceptable and I think we also need to … say that to the trade unions. I have probably slightly less influence with the trade unions than you do but I’m working on it.

Mr Cameron went on to suggest that his party will help deliver this message to Trade Unions.

“..we need to be much more active, more vocal, in our condemnation of antisemitism.

One issue where that is especially true is academic boycotts of Israeli academics. Totally unacceptable. Whether boycotters realise it or not these modern-day exclusions, based on nationality and tied to religion, carry enormous historical baggage. My party has made it clear we find them morally objectionable, and also counterproductive: the only route to peace will only ever be through dialogue.”