PA boycott talk

The PA has recently decided to boycott goods made in Israeli villages in Judea and Samaria. It has also decided to ban Palestinians from working in those same areas. To give a flavour of this boycott, here is a quotation from an Arab watermelon seller:

“These are Arab watermelons,” he said with some feeling. He pointed to the sticker on the melons, which, although it boasted an Israeli mobile phone number, was written in Arabic. “These are not Jewish,” he said. “And they are sweet.”

Watermelons with a nationality!

What I don't understand from the point of view of Palestinian or Jewish workers is the deliberate endangering of employment opportunities for workers facing high levels of unemployment. A large number of Arab workers are employed in Israeli villages across the Green Line and enjoy the full protection of Israeli labour law. The money they earn goes right back into the Palestinian economy. They work in these villages alongside Jewish workers thereby possibly building some roots of cross-national worker solidarity.

In addition, the boycott clearly is in violation of the Paris Agreement (Annex IV of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement). This agreement (which does not distinguish between Jewish villages on one side or the other of the Green Line, states (in part):

Both sides will attempt to maintain the normality of movement of labor between them

and later

Each side will do its best to avoid damage to the industry of the other side and will take into consideration the concerns of the other side in its industrial policy.

As workers, we should be opposed to such a boycott - it only hurts workers and their families. Moreover, by undermining already signed agreements, it only weakens the prospect for peace. For peace to be assured, signed commitments need to be honoured.

Unfortunately, this latest "provocation" got little play in the mainstream press.

Thinkin' about boycotts

So, a facebook friend had a link up to a Jordanian site calling for the boycott of numerous US and European companies. The post states simply:

Below is a list of companies in Amman that support Israel. Do not purchase any of their products under any circumstances because they will donate a part of their profits to Israel.

It then goes on to list 15 corporations.

Let's start with the fact that this is a Jordanian campaign. Article 7 of the Israel-Jordan Peace Agreement requires the parties "to remove all discriminatory barriers to normal economic relations, to terminate economic boycotts directed at each other, and to co-operate in terminating boycotts against either Party by third parties." This campaign is thus in violation of a solemn treaty entered into by the Hashemite kingdom.

Second, Jordanian citizenship law deny citizenship to Jews (there are no Jews in Jordan). During Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria, Jews were excluded from Jordanian citizenship by law.

Third, let's look at just the first company listed: Starbucks. Starbucks doesn't actually operate in Israel (it tried to but lost money and left the market). It does operate in a number of Arab countries. It does negotiate with unions (one of the only coffee chains that has unionized workers). So, why is it targeted?

Here is the simple answer:

In summary. Starbucks’ chair Howard Schutltz (sic) is an active zionist (sic) whose own activities include running propaganda seminars on behalf of Israel across campuses in both North America and Israel.

. Let me put it plainer, Howard Schultz is a JEW! Well that makes things clearer, doesn't it!

- just so it is not lost on the reader, in the same website where countries with startbucks locations are listed (with Muslim ones in bold), Israel (Palestine) is listed in bold. There are two obvious problems with this. First, Starbucks doesn't do business in Israel at the current time. The second problem is that Israel is not a Muslim state.

To put it plainly, this kind of boycott, based on the ethnicity of the owner, is simply a carrying forward of the Arab boycott (which was simply a carrying forward of the Nazi boycott). Starting in 1936, Arab leaders called for a boycott of Jewish businesses in the Palestine Mandate. This policy was then broadened by the Arab league in the aftermath of the 1948 war (in which the stated objectives of the Arab armies was the liquidation of the Jewish population of Israel). The current call for boycotts simply continues this pattern.

Should trade unionists be supporting such actions? Boycotts based on ethnicity? Boycotts whose origins are clearly racist? Boycotts that violate signed peace treaties? Really? Gimme a break.

Why have I created this blog?

I have created this blog to provide a space on the web for Canadian trade unionists who support Israel.

Over the past several years, some within the Canadian and international labour movements have engaged in campaigns designed to denigrate the State of Israel. Those trade unionists who have attempted to demonize the State of Israel do not represent the views of rank and file trade unionists in Canada.

As a result, a number of trade unionists from various national unions have come together to provide a resource for trade uinonists who support Israel. We do so on the firm conviction that support for Israel is consistent with deeply held trade union values. We also do so on the deep conviction that the path to peace in the Middle East cannot come through the demonization and isolation of the Jewish state.

The launch of this site was driven by the recent "call" for trade unionists to use May Day to protest the possible adhesion of the State of Israel to the OECD. A "call" like this exemplifies the problem and makes it clear what underlies this anti-Israel campaign.

Why? First, May Day is a day of international worker solidarity. It also happens to be the only holiday celebrated by both Israeli and Palestinian workers. This is a day meant to celebrate the unity of the international working class - not a day to divide workers based on their nationality. Second, the State of Israel has a free, vibrant and democratic trade union movement. Trade unionists should not be attempting to isolate such a country - especially on May Day. Third, trade unionists have not made such a "call" concerning the adhesion of other countries, in particular other countries with truly problematic human rights and trade union rights records. For instance, both South Korea and Turkey belong to the OECD - and neither can claim to have a free trade union movement.

As a trade unionist, I cannot support such a call. In fact, we must mobilize to expose the double standards, to inform, educate and organize. If you would like to help out, let me know.
Mikael