Join Israel boycott, CUPE tells members

[mpolo2]

Resolution passes at annual meeting
COLIN FREEZE

CUPE Ontario leaders decided this weekend to urge members to join a boycott against Israel -- a hard-line stand that critics describe as a misguided and ill-considered interposition into Middle East affairs that may be without precedent in Canada.

Even unions that have been sympathetic to Palestinian causes say they wouldn't go anywhere near as far as measures endorsed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees' Ontario wing.

"No, we don't support the boycott," said Arthur Sandborn, of the 200,000-strong Confédération des syndicats nationaux in Quebec. "None of the major unions [in Quebec] are actually supporting this."

Earlier this year, Mr. Sandborn's union was accused of supporting a boycott against Israel, even though he said that CSN members never did so -- nor would they.

At its annual meeting on Sunday, CUPE Ontario, which represents nearly half of the public-sector union's 450,000 members across Canada, unanimously passed a resolution to boycott Israel.

This resolution followed calls for solidarity from Palestinian groups, which have urged union leaders worldwide to join them in condemning Israel's controversial security wall; its critics have dubbed the wall an "apartheid" barrier.

Some unions in other countries are joining in. A union representing nearly 70,000 British teachers voted yesterday to engage in academic protests, such as refusing to co-operate with Israeli academics or Israeli research journals.

The measures endorsed by CUPE Ontario go far beyond that. On the weekend, members explicitly agreed to support an "international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions" because of the "apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state." CUPE Ontario hopes to persuade other Canadian unions to follow suit.

Leaders of B'nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center are calling the vote outrageous, unrepresentative of the views of most union members and inconsiderate of both the historic and present-day realities of life in Israel.

Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario, says he will stand firm and follow through with specific actions, such as trying to persuade public-sector pension funds to dump Israeli bonds.

He added that the declaration was unanimous among the 900 CUPE Ontario members who voted on it. The national CUPE headquarters has not endorsed any Israel boycott.

___________________________________________

from the Tuesday Globe.

As divisive an issue as the Palestinian/Israeli situation is, I cant for the life of me understand why an organization out to fight for the rights/benefits of Ontario's public sector workers would want to add it to their agenda. I guess Kinnear and the TTC now have some competition for Union hubris and stupidity. How would you feel to be a Jewish/Israeli public sector worker in Ontario right now?

 

[ganjavih]

One can't help wonder how long this pointless and idiotic conflict will go on for.

 

[shawnmicallef]

Hundreds of years (thousands?) = considerable momentum.

 

[TdotTrickyRicky]

I am also baffled as to why CUPE needs a foreign policy? Then again I fail to see why a Union needs to have partisan political affiliation as well.

 

[Forest Hill]

I think this is ridiculous, CUPE should focus on what they're supposed to focus on. my parents have tons of jewish public sectors employees who are incredibly outraged by this.

 

[BuildTO]

I used to know nothing about this debate, and accepted everything I saw in the mainstream media. Recently I began learning about Palestine and have become outraged at the situation - especially as so many of the basic historical facts are undisputed. The following is a letter from a CUPE member. It's a long read, but worth it if you want to understand the issue better.


Canadian Union Takes Important Step Against Israeli Apartheid

**Adam Hanieh**

At the annual convention of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario, held 24-27 May 2006 in Ottawa, the union passed a resolution of historic importance. Resolution 50 -- adopted unanimously by the 900 delegates at the largest convention in the union's history -- expressed support for the global campaign against Israeli apartheid. The union stated that it would educate its members on the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and Canadian political and economic support for these practices. It also declared that CUPE Ontario would participate in the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until the realization of Palestinian self-determination. Most importantly, the union highlighted the significance of the right of return of Palestinian refugees as a critical component of Palestinian self-determination.

Resolution 50 is a vital step for both Palestinian rights and the North American labor movement. CUPE Ontario is the largest public sector union in Ontario and represents over 200,000 workers in the most highly populated province of Canada. The resolution represents the most powerful statement in support of Palestinian rights ever made by a North American trade union.

Two days after Resolution 50 was adopted, another boycott resolution was passed by the largest union of university teachers in Britain, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE). NATFHE, representing around 70,000 members, declared its active support of boycotts against Israeli academics and academic institutions that do not publicly take an explicit stand against Israeli apartheid and Israel's discriminatory educational system.

These two resolutions represent the latest in a snowballing movement to isolate Israeli apartheid in the manner of South African apartheid. A long list of institutions, city councils, religious organizations, political parties and unions have endorsed the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (see below for a selected list of these initiatives). Two weeks ago, the Green Party of the United States issued a powerful policy statement that supported "divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized." In February 2006, the Church of England's general synod-including the Archbishop of Canterbury-voted to disinvest church funds from companies profiting from the Israeli occupation. On 16 December 2005, the regional council of the Sor-Trondelag in Norway passed a motion calling for a comprehensive boycott on Israeli goods to be followed up with an awareness raising campaign across the region. Sor-Trondelag was the first Norwegian county to boycott South Africa and is now the first to boycott Israeli apartheid.

This growing movement has provoked a widespread crisis within the Zionist movement. The Israeli press is full of stories, editorial comment and debate about the boycott, divestment, sanctions campaign. No other international solidarity effort has so dominated the Israeli debate. Underlying most of this commentary is a deep fear that the identification of Israel with apartheid is reaching a critical mass within popular consciousness world-wide. The response of the Zionist movement has been strikingly incompetent and reflects their inability to deal with the charge of apartheid.

Take for instance the Canadian Jewish Congress's (CJC) "action alert" against the CUPE Ontario decision. The alert raises three questions that the CJC urges its supporters to raise with CUPE Ontario leaders:

**Last summer, Israel withdrew its settlements from Gaza and the northern West Bank. A new Israeli government has just been elected on a platform of continuing this disengagement process. Why would CUPE Ontario call for a boycott that will punish Israelis just as these important steps are being taken?

**The Palestinian election of a Hamas-dominated government that supports terrorism and is committed to the destruction of Israel has led to an economic crisis; international aid has correctly been denied to this recognized terrorist organization. Concerned Canadians should be looking to offer humanitarian help to the Palestinians, not to punish Israelis. Why would CUPE Ontario fail to use its voice in a constructive way?

**CUPE Ontario's resolution calls for the unlimited return of refugees to Israel. It is well recognized that this approach would spell the end of a Jewish state. Why is CUPE Ontario adopting this extreme position ?


The most striking feature of the CJC alert is that it completely avoids any mention of the question of apartheid. The word itself does not appear at all in the entire statement. This is a most remarkable omission and can only be considered deliberate given that the main thrust of the CUPE Ontario decision (see below) is the comparison with South African apartheid. Indeed, the first item of the CUPE resolution is to conduct an "education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state". Only one conclusion can be drawn from this omission: the CJC is neither able nor willing to argue against
the charge of Israeli apartheid.

The three points raised by the CJC confirm this conclusion. While the CJC praises Israeli "disengagement", this so-called concession is widely accepted as the final step in the construction of an apartheid solution. Apartheid-era South Africa placed the black population into territorially disconnected areas called Bantustans. Bantustans appeared to give blacks control over their own municipal affairs while denying them self-determination and any real or effective control of their lives. Movement in and out of the Bantustans was controlled by permits and pass cards. Economic control remained in the hands of the white apartheid state. This is precisely the situation that 'disengagement' is meant to formalize in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip.

All informed commentators agree that Olmert's disengagement plan is aimed at leaving the major settlement blocs in the West Bank intact. Olmert himself touts this as the major plank of his plan. The aim is to win international acceptance for Palestinian Bantustans - the Palestinian population crowded into isolated and divided cantons separated by settlements, Israeli-only roads and military checkpoints. This is not a new strategy; it has been the clear intention of Israeli leaders since the occupation of these areas in 1967.

The current situation in the Gaza Strip is a powerful illustration of this apartheid reality. Israel completely controls the economy and borders of this tiny area that constitutes the most densely populated place on earth. Israeli missiles can be dropped on Gaza day and night, with the population starved from all work, outside supplies and possibility of travel. This is what 'disengagement' portends for the West Bank.

Precisely because Israel controls all flows of funds, people and goods into the isolated Palestinian Bantustans the CJC is able to champion the severing of aid to the Palestinian Authority. In the last month, this has led to deaths of at least four hospitalized Palestinians who were unable to obtain dialysis treatment due to Israeli control of what goes in and out of Palestinian areas. A few weeks ago, Palestinian prison guards were forced to appeal to relatives of inmates to provide food because there was not enough to feed prisoners. Enforced mass starvation of a civilian population is quite simply a war crime. An important statement signed two weeks ago by every major Palestinian organization in Canada put it this way: Palestinian right to life should not be conditional on acquiescence to Israeli apartheid.

Finally, the third CJC talking point reveals the crux of the debate. The CJC states that the right of return of Palestinian refugees "would spell the end of a Jewish state." Israeli apartheid is founded upon the notion of an exclusively Jewish state that denies equal rights to everyone else. In 1948, 80% of the indigenous Palestinian population were driven from their homes and land and became refugees. The Israeli state guarantees any person of a Jewish background, anywhere in the world, the right to become a citizen of Israel yet the indigenous population is refused their right to return. The right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and land is not simply a legal question (although it is guaranteed under international law). Most significantly, it points to the fact that we should oppose any state that operates on the basis of one religious or ethnic exlusivity. The central goal of the anti-apartheid struggle is a state in which anyone can live, regardless of their religious or ethnic background. This unquestionably means the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and lands from which they were expelled in 1948.

Jonathan Cook, an outstanding journalist for the British newspaper, The Guardian, recently discussed how Olmert's disengagement plan confirms the basic premise of the current anti-apartheid struggle:

"Olmert outlined to Israel's Haaretz newspaper the most serious issue facing Israel. It was, he said, the problem of how, when the Palestinians were on the eve of becoming a majority in the region, to prevent them from launching a struggle similar to the one against apartheid waged by black South Africans. Olmert's concern was that, if the Palestinian majority renounced violence and began to fight for 'one- person, one-vote', Israel would be faced by "a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle -- and ultimately a much more powerful one". Palestinian peaceful resistance, therefore, had to be pre-empted by Israel. The logic of Olmert's solution, as he explained it then, sounds very much like the reasoning behind disengagement and now convergence: " formula for the parameters of a unilateral solution are: to maximise the number of Jews; to minimise the number of Palestinians". Or, as he put it last week, "division of the land, with the goal of ensuring a Jewish majority, is Zionism's lifeline"."

Both the CUPE Ontario and NATFHE resolutions are big steps forward in the struggle against Israeli apartheid. They confirm that recognition of Israel as an apartheid state is now approaching a stage of popular acceptance. This victory was not achieved overnight but is the culmination of the work of many activists worldwide who have persevered with the ongoing tasks of leafleting, postering, teach-ins, demonstrations and many other activities. Most of all, it is testament to the unbelievable endurance of the Palestinian people on the ground in Palestine and in refugee camps throughout the region. Our challenge is to continue to deepen the confidence among wider layers of the population in Canada and elsewhere in arguing for and becoming active in the struggle against Israeli apartheid. The resolutions of the last week have made this task much easier.

Adam Hanieh is a member of the Al Awda Right of Return Group (Toronto), the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid and CUPE.

 

[BuildTO]

I forgot to mention that there are many Jewish Canadians - some of them friends of mine - who support the boycott. The issue is oppression, not anti-semitism.

 

[bizorky]

For starters, does CUPE boycott Cuba? Or does it boycott Saudi Arabia? Or how about boycotting Iran? Does it have a nice long public list for boycotting other governments or regimes? In the name of fairness, I certainly hope so. Also, in the name of fairness, maybe they should boycott the new Palestinian government, since it believes in the destruction of Isreal. It takes two to tango, after all.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

I've visited Israel, and seen first hand Jewish, Arab, Christian, Asian and other folks all living peacefullly and quite successfully together. This is the only well working democracy in the Middle East, with both Jewish and Arab members of the Knesset (you won't find that in any Arab country's government body).

What we refer to today as Palestinians are mostly Jordianians, displaced by Jordan's defeat in the 1967 war (which they started, along with their Arab neighbours). Jordan should be taking back their citizens, but instead there are tens of thousands of "Palestinians" held in camps in Jordan, and Lebanon and IIRC Syria and Egypt, in addition to the Israeli occupied territories.

Once Palestinians began attacking Israeli civilians (both Arab and Jew), including utilizing suicide bombs, I began to fully support the building of the security wall. I would have liked to have seen it built along 1967 borders, but with all Jeresalem going to Israel (Arab's lost the war they started, so they lose the city - same as happened to Germany's loss of Danzig (Gdansk) in 1919.).

The ideal solution would have been Israel annexing the entire west bank, regardless of international opinion, and granting Israeli citizenship to the entire population. This however would have led to Israeli being majority Arab, causing other issues.

 

[ganjavih]

Dude, cut the "Palestinians" in quotation marks shit.

 

[blixa442]

This CUPE action is anti-Semitism at its most blatant.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"This however would have led to Israeli being majority Arab, causing other issues."

No, Israel would be about 2/3 Jewish, still a clear majority. This is if the annexation happened today - had it happened decades ago, the 2/3 figure might be on the high side, though...more security could lead to a more rapidly increasingly Arab population and their presence might have discouraged some Jewish migration to Israel. However, even if Arabs outnumbered Jews, they would certainly not hold the majority of high-ranking political and economic positions.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Dude, cut the "Palestinians" in quotation marks shit.

Done only to emphasize that many of those folks we refer to today as Palestinians are in fact Jordanians. The West Bank, where the majority of Palestinians live today, was part of Jordan in 1967, and would still be today had Jordan not attacked Israel. Also, I wanted to differentiate between Israeli-Arabs (Israeli citizens) and the former Jordanians.

EDIT...no offence intended against Palestinians. These people have really been shafted by history. Abandoned by their leader in Amman, forced to live generation after generation in fenced-in camps in Jordan, Israel, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon, and disregarded by the USA and much of the west as troublesome rioters and terrorists. India had its Ghandi to peacefully shame the British to leave, South Africa had its Mandella to led the world to economically and politically bring apartheid to an end. Instead of such leadership, the Palestinians got Arafat, the PLO and Hamas, despots who led the Palestinians to nothing, other than the suicide-deaths of thousands of their youth.

 

[ganjavih]

The West Bank, where the majority of Palestinians live today, was part of Jordan in 1967, and would still be today had Jordan not attacked Israel.

I don't know where you got that information from. It was administered by, but not a part of Jordan. See the history of the region here.

And yes, the Palestinians have been screwed by their fellow Arabs but ignoring Israel's role in their miserable situation is being disingenuous.

 

[bizorky]

Done only to emphasize that many of those folks we refer to today as Palestinians are in fact Jordanians.

Your point is taken, but as we are not living in the past, it is safe to say that the population can be presently referred to as Palestinian. All the countries in that part of the mid-east are modern creations. The resulting turbulence over the course of their development has resulted in movements of populations between nations, resulting in some confusion over what national designations apply, and to whom.

While Palestinians may not be Jordanian, it is interesting to note that their land was occupied and ruled by the Jordanians.