On the one hand, many of its members and activists don’t believe that Israel should exist. PSC does not support a two-state solution.

On the other hand, PSC as been working hard in order to attract Trade Unions and MPs as affiliates. To do this, PSC has had to wear moderate clothes. Most of the Trade Unions that are affiliated to PSC have a pro-two-state policy, and so do some of the MPs who are involved in it. If you asked some of these MPs or Union General Secretaries whether the Palestine Solidarity Campaign supported Israel’s continuing right to exist, they’d say “of course it does”. I know this because I’ve done it.

PSC works hard to stop its most high-profile supporters learning what they’ve signed up to, but they can’t hide the most obvious clue: the PSC logo, which includes a map of the whole of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

PSC's logo

This week’s Jewish Chronicle reveals that Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has written to the PSC to raise the issue of their logo. She writes:

“It has been brought to my attention that the PSC logo appears to reflect 1917, pre-creation of Israel, borders and as such could be open to interpretation by some as implying non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist. I am following this up with the director of the PSC since I am quite sure that PSC does indeed recognise Israel’s right to exist, and it is unhelpful and damaging if any other impression is given.”

Caroline Lucas is not a friend of Israel, and the Green Party’s policy on Israel (such as their support for boycotts) is harmful and wrong. However, she has done exactly the right thing here and shown leadership. Other MPs and Trade Unions who work with PSC should do the same and not allow the PSC’s leaders to equivocate.

Ultimately, if the PSC does not change its logo that wipes Israel off the map, then Caroline Lucas – and all of us – will have our answer.

• CST explain why the EUMC definition is important here
• Ben Gidley has an excellent piece on why this motion is so problematic here

The motion comes after five years of UCU passing boycotts of Israel, inviting racists to speak, ignoring the resignations of Jewish members and allowing a deeply uncomfortable atmosphere for Jewish members to persist in the union.

Before the motion, Jewish leaders wrote to UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt. They also contacted Trevor Phillips of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who confirmed that nobody from UCU consulted with the Commission. He restated the importance of the MacPhearson definition of a racist incident, saying:

“..if the object of harrasment or attack regards her treatment as being anti-semitic, even if the perpetrator maintains that their action is politically motivated, the presumption is that the victim’s perception is what defines the incident.”

None of this made any difference. The motion was proposed by the Union’s own National Executive Committee and passed by a huge majority. See Engage’s live blog of the debate.

We now believe that UCU is an institutionally racist organisation. If you agree, join our Twitter campaign and help spread the word. We tweeted:

We believe that @UCU is an institutionally racist organisation. RT if you agree.

If you’re a Twitter user and you agree with us, then join in, tweet and spread the word.

“UCU’s treatment of its Jewish members over the last five years includes assaulting their identity, ignoring their harassment in the Union and refusing to investigate their resignations. Now UCU has gone further and simply redefined ‘antisemitism’ itself. UCU will actually campaign for other organisations to stop fully fighting antisemitism, and has changed its procedures so complaints from Jewish members will be treated with suspicion.

The truth is apparent: whatever the motivations of its members, we believe UCU is an institutionally racist organisation.”

For a live report of UCU’s vote on redefining antisemitism, see ENGAGE.

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

 

 

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.

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

Invasion of the union snatchers?

By John Morgan

Senior members of the University and College Union have accused the Socialist Workers Party and a lecturers’ Left group of seeking to “take over” the union while using its members and resources as “cannon fodder”.

In an email to branch officials, the union’s treasurer and two members of the national executive committee (NEC) argue that the actions of “SWP/UCU Left” have “undermined our credibility with our members and strengthened the hand of the employers”.

The union, which has about 65,000 members in the academy, is holding five strike ballots across further and higher education this month over jobs, pay and pensions.

Supporters of the UCU Left, an increasingly influential force on the NEC, say the email is counterproductive at a crucial time for the union.

They criticise “red scare” tactics, saying UCU Left members are independent and come from a range of political backgrounds.

The email comes after Sally Hunt, the UCU’s general secretary, warned the NEC that union strategy was being “directed by bodies outside UCU rather than our own members”.

Divisions have hardened after the UCU Left successfully pressed for the union to support a protest by left-wing student groups in London on 29 January, against fees and cuts.

This angered opponents – including Ms Hunt – who noted the violence of previous marches and warned of damage to the UCU’s relationship with the National Union of Students.

In the email, the three members of the “independent broad left group” of the NEC – Alan Carr, the union treasurer, John McCormack and Angela Roger – appeal for support for a Reclaim the Union campaign.

They criticise “the sectarian behaviour of the Socialist Workers Party, which dominates and controls…’UCU Left’”, and say the groups “are seeking to take over our union”.

The email blames them for the “much ridiculed 8 per cent pay claim in higher education in 2009″.

Previous criticisms of the UCU Left have focused on the proposed boycott of Israeli universities.

“The SWP/UCU Left seems determined to use members and the union’s resources as cannon fodder, and the only winners from this folly will be the employers and the government,” they say.

“While we seek the support of local NUS students for our own disputes, the NEC has created an alliance with student organisations (that) publicly attack NUS.”

UCU Left supporters said that the three signatories supported earlier versions of motions backing the London protest and asked why they “went along” with such motions if they believed there was an “SWP plot”.

An SWP spokesman said it was “hardly a secret” that party members are active in the UCU, “but the idea that there is an attempt at a ‘palace coup’ by a group of socialists to take over the union is frankly crazy”.

• 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.

On March 31st UNISON, one of the UK’s largest trade unions, announced their support for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s effort to end the sale of Israeli settlement produce in Britain. On the face of it this is hardly a controversial position – the settlements established from 1967 onwards are widely considered illegal and a barrier to the peace process.

However, a closer look at the ideology and discourse of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign show that all is not as it seems. The PSC have an interesting article on their website entitled 62 Years of Nakba in which they state the following:

The United Nations had proposed a partition plan giving 55% of ancient Palestine for a Jewish state but the Zionists – who had targeted the whole of Palestine for the creation of a Jewish State long before the Nazi atrocities – took 78% of the land by terrorist tactics and military force.

The clear implication here is that it is not the land taken in the 1967 war by Israel that is occupied, but rather much of the land that Israel controlled after the 1948 War of Independence. Under this thinking, the cities such as Ashdod, Beersheva and Jaffa are considered occupied Palestinian land. Does the PSC consider produce from these areas as ‘settlement goods’ that should be boycotted?

The PSC’s ‘Settlements – The Fact’ briefing sheet again reiterates this position :

In 1947, the UN partitioned Palestine (whose population was 70% Palestinian Arab) and decreed that 55% of the land would be used to create Israel. In 1948, Zionist forces seized more land, razing about 500 Palestinian villages to the ground and driving 750,000 Palestinians abroad as refugees. More than 13,000 Palestinians were killed.

The PSC is deliberately blurring the line between the lands occupied in 1967, and the State of Israel as established in 1948. The TUC, UNISON, and other trade unions that sign up to the PSC campaign to boycott settlement goods should clearly distance themselves from any attempt to conflate the two. Failure to do so could result in a full scale boycott of Israeli goods, which would be a barrier to peace and significantly damage Israeli and Palestinian trade unionists and workers on the ground. Opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be accompanied by solidarity with grassroots activists in the Histadrut and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions. It is the workers on the ground that want to see a just and long lasting peace for Israel and Palestinian – and it is groups like the PSC that seek to undermine them at every turn.

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?