This Sunday, As part of the London Literary Festival, the South Bank Centre is hosting an event called “Why Boycott Culture“. It is a debate on the motion  ’Cultural boycott can be an effective, indeed morally imperative, political strategy‘

The debate features Omar Barghouti, human rights activist and author of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions – The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights, and poet Seni Seneviratne, author of Wild Cinammon and Winter Skin, both speaking for the motion.

Speaking against the motion are Carol Gould, broadcaster and author of Don’t Tread on Me – Anti-Americanism Abroad, and Jonathan Freedland, a columnist for the Guardian, and author of six books including Jacob’s Gift.

Opponents of boycotts – especially boycotts of Israel – should find it an interesting event.

The email below was sent out to UCU branches a couple of weeks ago. We have obtained a copy. In it, UCU’s General Secretary and President try to promote a boycott of Israel without actually promoting a boycott of Israel.

UCU has a problem:

1. It’s illegal and discriminatory for UCU to promote or organise an academic boycott of Israel. This has been repeatedly confirmed by the Union’s own lawyers and by Stop the Boycott.
2. However, UCU’s Socialist-Worker-dominated structures have voted to pursue just such an unlawful and discriminatory boycott policy anyway

Any sensible Trade Union would have never allowed itself to get into this situation, and would have just ruled the boycott motions as ultra vires. It seems that UCU is so obsessed with Israel that it’s prepared to risk breaking the law to promote its discriminatory policy.

UCU has tried to get round this contradiction by promoting a boycott while pretending, at the same time, that it’s doing nothing of the sort.

We’re not fooled, and we don’t think you will be either once you read it. This email below is proof that UCU is promoting a boycott of Israel against its own legal advice.

UCU/350   April 2011

University and College Union

Carlow Street, London NW1 7LH Telephone 020 7756 2500

To	Branch and local association secretaries
Topic	Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS)
Action	For information
Summary	A summary of existing UCU policy and advice on Palestine/Israel
Contact	Paul Bennett, Senior National Official (pbennett@ucu.org.uk)

 

Dear Colleague

Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) – the Case of Israel; and the Case of Ariel College, occupied West Bank

At the last meeting of the union’s Strategy and Finance Committee it was agreed that in the run up to Congress the president should circulate to branches and local associations for information the attached summary of existing UCU policy and advice on Palestine/Israel.

Yours sincerely

 

Sally Hunt

General secretary

Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) – the Case of Israel; and the Case of Ariel College, occupied West Bank

Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions

You will be aware that the matter of boycott in relation to Israeli academic institutions has been part of an on-going debate in the UCU for some time.  The question has been raised at successive Congresses in relation to a number of related issues, and branches and regions have been asked to discuss the question, and to invite speakers where appropriate. This was, quite properly, a protracted process so that colleagues in branches had much time to reflect before branch delegates to our annual Congress finally determined UCU policy.

I do not intend to rehearse either side of the argument here in any detail. In essence, however, the case for a boycott hinged on the complicity of all Israeli academic institutions in the continuance of an illegal occupation of the West Bank (research on weaponry, psychology of interrogation and pacification, surveillance, training of occupation forces, anthropological and philosophical reasons and rationalisations, etc.), and a failure to dissociate themselves from the occupation, and its adverse effects on Palestinian education and the academic freedom of its scholars, or from the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinian population within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.

The case against the boycott concerned two claims: the illegitimacy of singling out Israel for such treatment amongst all the nation states that engage in oppressive and discriminatory policy, and the consequently implicit anti-Semitism entailed in the proposal for a boycott of Israel; and the unacceptability of ever infringing academic freedom by ostracizing any section of the global academic community, and particularly a section (Israeli institutions) which makes such a distinctive and disproportionate contribution to knowledge and technique.

At our last Congress, delegates again debated the policy, this time on the issue of the general application of a boycott, disinvestment and sanctions policy. The motion debated is reproduced below for information. The decision of Congress, on the vote of the overwhelming majority of delegates, was to adopt this motion unamended as the policy position of the UCU.

Since this issue was debated at UCU Congress last year, it has been adopted by an increasing number of trade unions in the TUC, and is the policy of the Scottish TUC. It is also the policy of a growing number of trade unions and trade union federations internationally. Within the last year, it is a policy that has also been adopted by a minority of Israeli academic colleagues and scholars.

Advice to Members

I am writing to you now, on the advice of the National Executive, simply to inform you of this fact. This information does not constitute an instruction from the UCU to implement a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or of Israel in general. The UCU is not in a position to issue such an instruction to members. Nor is it an individual invitation to members from me, as President, or from the NEC, to operate such a boycott. That is a matter for the individual conscience of each of us. The point of this communication is simply to draw your attention to the policy position of your union. How individual members decide to act in relation to that information is a matter for them.

Ariel College

A related matter concerned the issue of Ariel College. You will see the motion below that was passed, again overwhelmingly, about this institution. Ariel College is located in a settlement in the occupied West Bank. The mission statement of the College clearly specifies its role. The process by which it is to be granted university status is currently a matter of dispute in Israel, where many Israeli scholars are disquieted both by the process itself, and by the implication of installing a university on occupied land.

The motion is self-explanatory. The Strategy and Finance Committee will be taking forward the issue of an investigation.

Emergency Motion

A related Emergency Motion was also passed on the morning of the Congress that Israeli forces attacked the aid flotilla to Gaza. The text of that motion is also reproduced here.

Further Information

Members requiring further information on the policy of BDS or about Ariel College are advised to pursue their own web-based search initially, and then to contact the relevant organizations. Those who are interested in the issue of education in Israel and in the Occupied Territories could start with the chapter on Palestine in the 2009 study of academic freedom internationally by James Cemmell commissioned by the UCU (http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/r/h/acdemic_freedom_palestine.pdf ).^[1]

 

Alan Whitaker

President, UCU

 

31 Palestine solidarity, BDS, and Histadrut – University of Brighton Grand Parade

Congress notes

n   the successful international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) conference hosted by the UCU in line with Congress policy;

n   the statement that emerged from that conference, and the call from the Palestinian Boycott National Committee for an isolation of Israel while it continues to act in breach of international law.

Congress resolves:

n   to reaffirm its support for BDS, and to seek its implementation within the constraints of the existing law;

n   to seek in conjunction with other trade unions, nationally and internationally, to establish an annual international conference on BDS, a trade union sponsored BDS website and a research centre on commercial, cultural and academic complicity with Israeli breaches of international law, with appropriate cost sharing;

n   to sever all relations with Histadrut, and to urge other trade unions and bodies to do likewise;

to campaign actively against the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and to coordinate that campaign with other trade unions and solidarity movements.

CARRIED

 

32 Ariel and West Bank Colonisation – University of Brighton Falmer

Congress notes

n   the continuing colonisation of the West Bank – construction of illegal settlements, Israeli-only roads, diversion of Palestinian water, disaggregation of the territory, disruption of Palestinian life, destruction of olive groves and separation of Palestinian cultivators from their land, denial of educational and scholarly opportunities to Palestinians, and the continuing construction of the Wall;

n   the contribution of Israel’s academy in this process – scientific and social and historical research, siting of annexes on illegally confiscated land, and support for military occupation;

n   the particular contribution of Ariel College in this process – recruiting Israelis as settlers for their education – and the recent decision of Israel to recognise Ariel as a ‘university centre’, on the way to its establishment as a university on occupied territory.

Congress resolves to commence the investigatory process associated with the imposition of a boycott of Ariel College.

CARRIED

 

L11    Emergency motion

Congress is appalled at the Israeli act of piracy in international waters on 31 May. It condemns the armed attack on the Gaza convoy and the murders of people seeking to bring aid to the people of Gaza suffering from the Israeli and Egyptian blockade.

Congress believes this constitutes a prima facie crime against humanity.

Congress believes that the senior Israeli government members and senior military and naval officers responsible for commissioning this action should be tried for this crime.

Congress demands that the UK government does not change the rules on universal jurisdiction to impede bringing the people responsible for these murders to justice.

CARRIED

 

---

^[1] Cemmell, J. Academic Freedom: International Study (Burma, Columbia, Israel, Palestine, Zimbabwe), UCU, London, 2009

 

 

This is a Guest Post from TULIP

Britain’s giant public sector union UNISON has just issued its long-awaited report on its delegation’s visit to Israel and Palestine.

The visit had been scheduled to take place a year ago, finally happened at the end of 2010, and the report has become available only now.

It is a long and detailed report reflecting the organization’s views of the conflict, but the really interesting bit — the surprising bit — was what happened when the UNISON team asked Palestinian trade unionists and Israeli leftists whether the union should sever its ties with the Histadrut.

The union had been instructed by its governing bodies to look into this very question.

It was, in some ways, the central question, the one that really mattered above all.

And the advice the union got from everyone it talked to was: don’t sever your ties with the Histadrut.

What the report says is so extraordinary that it needs to be quoted at length — and this passage should be shown to any union anywhere in the world that is thinking about cutting off ties with Israel’s trade unions.

Here is what they say:

All the organisations we met during the delegation including the PGFTU, the new Israeli trade unions and Israeli NGOs are or have been critical of the Histadrut in the past for various reasons.

However, they all stressed that the Histadrut was a legitimate trade union and with over 700,000 members was clearly the dominant trade union in terms of members and collective bargaining coverage. Even the new Israeli unions accepted that the Histadrut had been responsible for Israel’s strong labour and employment protection legislation. They also recognised that the Histadrut remained influential, although less so than in the past, with the Israeli government.

Neither did any of them call on UNISON to sever its relations with the Histadrut, in fact the opposite. The PGFTU in particular said that UNISON should maintain links with the Histadrut so that we could specifically put pressure on them to take a more vocal public stance against the occupation and the settlements.

Kav laOved, Koach laOvdim and WAC/Ma’an all felt that international trade union influence on the Histadrut was essential in moving it towards more progressive policies in relation to migrant workers and discrimination against Palestinian Israeli workers.

There is much in the report that we wouldn’t agree with – including criticism of things we and others have written and said – but the bottom line is that when Palestinian trade unionists are asked, they turn out to be supporters of engagement with the Histadrut and urge unions everywhere to keep up their ties with the Israeli union federation.

The following letter appeared in the Independent last week:

I wonder whether it is just possible that those members of the University and College Union (UCU) who, for many years, have campaigned for the academic boycott of Israel – the only democratic country in the Middle East – are prepared to think seriously about the implications of the Gaddafi-LSE affair and the acceptance by several UK Universities of huge amounts of money in order to set up Oriental Institutes and Islamic and Middle Eastern studies centres whose academic appointments and courses of study are strongly influenced by their patrons. Will those members of UCU who call for the boycott of Israeli universities remain silent about the acceptance of funding with strings attached from the despotic rulers of countries such as Libya, Saudi Arabia or Qatar?

Henry Ettinghausen
Emeritus Professor of Spanish
University of Southampton

HT: modernity

On Sunday, Roger Waters announced his support for a boycott of Israel.  Ben-Dror Yemini of Maariv has written him an open letter challenging him.

One thing that strengthens Yemini’s point is actually there in Waters’ own announcement. He declares his support for a boycott aimed at:

Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands [occupied since 1967] and dismantling the Wall;

Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

Note the section in square brackets above. They look odd, don’t they? Square brackets normally suggest an insertion that’s not in the original text.

This is because Waters is quoting the Palestinian boycott call issued in 2005. That call read:

“1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall”

What does “All Arab lands” mean? It’s not clear, but plenty of people would read that to mean all of Israel, and not just the West Bank and Gaza; effectively a call to eliminate Israel. Presumably this is also how Roger Walters read it, or he wouldn’t have felt the need to add his own insertion.

Given this – given that he must know that the boycott movement as a whole is trying to destroy Israel – why is he supporting it at all?

Ben-Dror Yemini’s letter is below.

To Roger Waters, Greetings.

Look Mr. Waters, the Jewish People is already used to blood libels. From using the blood of children for baking Passover matzah, to directing world Communism, to directing world capitalism, to controlling the media, and in the last generation, committing genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. A generation passes on and a generation arrives, and the number of blood libels forever exist.

Israel, Mr. Waters, is not exempt from any criticism. We’re the world champions of self-criticism. There isn’t another nation in which, in every field – not just the Israel-Palestinian conflict – there is so much biting, roiling criticism – often false and vicious. But even to this we’ve grown accustomed. Usually we’re proud of our democracy, even when it’s biting. But sometimes, Mr. Waters, we’re fed up. We’ve simply had it. Not from the criticism; it’s essential for every community, every society, every nation, like air to breathe.

We’re fed up with the lies. For most of us – if you can read a little beyond the slogans – were fed up with the occupation. So if that’s your thing you would find lots of partners in Israel – most Israelis. But that’s not the story – not for BDS, of which you’ve become a great supporter, and not for the Hamas in Gaza, which only a year ago you announced your support for those who went there to cheer them – another campaign of useful idiots.

Let’s start with the occupation. Only in the last decade Israel announced its willingness to end it, again, again and again. Completely. This began with the Camp David talks. The Palestinians backed away from a serious discussion. Then Clinton offered his proposal, which would have granted the Palestinians a state on 95% of the territory. They decided to say”no”. Right after that, at the Taba talks all the giants of the the Israeli Left showed up. They went another big step towards the Palestinians, but even that didn’t help. Two years ago another generous offer was made by Prime Minister Olmert. He didn’t even get a reply from Abu Mazen.

Back to the BDS. Listen to the leaders of the campaign. Read their manifesto. They don’t want two states for two peoples. Not the end of the occupation, but the end of Israel. You can hear it in their own voices. Yes, there are Israels among us who support this campaign. That’s how we are. Runaway democracy. Everything goes. So instead of marvelling at our unparalleled democracy, you take advantage of the fact that Israeli democracy allows demonstrations like this, and you go and join the gang that is fighting against the very existence of the national home of the Jewish People. That’s the position of Ahmadinejad, Al Qaida and Hamas. Is that your position? Have you gone crazy?

Are you in the peace camp, Mr. Waters? Here’s a simple test for you. Very simple. Ask your friends in the BDS one question: “Do you support an agreement of two states for two peoples?”

We’ve got news for you: They oppose it. They don’t want a Palestinian state alongside Israel, they want a Palestinian state in place of Israel. That’s what’s written in the manifesto of BDS. Read it, it’s in English. They write in it, “Right of Return”, which, loosely translated means “Destruction of Israel”. To remove any doubt, they have the right of return–to a Palestinian state alongside Israel, not in place of Israel.

You and your ilk, Mr. Waters, are simply prolonging the suffering of the Palestinians. You are encouraging the peace refuseniks among them. You are encouraging their illusions.You are creating a new chapter of the Palestinian disaster. Who knows, if it were not for this support – by so many useful idiots – the Palestinians would have emerged from their position of refusal. But when they see you, and you join up with them, they continue to refuse peace.

So this is an opportunity for you, Mr. Waters, to prove that you’re a humanitarian and human rights activist. It’s not complicated. Tell the Israelis and Palestinians and BDS people one thing: the end of the conflict will come only if the two sides recognize the two-state solution. The side that refuses is the side that must be pressured, even boycotted. Only when you say this simple thing to both sides will you truly be in the peace camp. If you continue to support BDS, you are supporting refusal and the continuation of occupation and suffering.

A reply from you Mr. Waters, will be greatly appreciated.