L4P Revised

Labour
for
PaLestine
A reader for unionists and activists in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israeli apartheid Developed by the labour committee of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid
Labour for Palestine

A reader developed by the labour committee of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid
Labour for Palestine

Revised edition, 2008 First edition published 2007
A publication of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid www.caiaweb.org

ISBN: 978-0-9782866-1-3
Design and layout: Sandra Sarner Front cover image: Courtesy of www.stopthewall.org Back cover photos: Robert J. Allison
Printed in Canada by JT Printing Ltd.
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................
SeCtIon one: Background and Analysis ..................................................................................
5 7 9
The Early History of Colonialism in Palestine: 1880-1967 ......................................................
The West Bank and Gaza Strip ................................................................................................ 11 Daily Life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip............................................................................ 12 An Abridged Timeline of the History of Palestine .................................................................. 16
SeCtIon two: Zionism, the Israeli Labour Movement and Palestinian workers ...........
Comparisons of South African and Israeli Apartheid .............................................................. 17 25 Zionism: False Messiah ............................................................................................................ 27 The Histadrut and Settler-Colonialism: The Early Years.......................................................... 34 CAIA Welcomes Call from Palestinian Trade Unionists to Boycott Israel and the Histadrut . 37 The Economics of Apartheid .................................................................................................... 39
SeCtIon three: Canada, Colonialism and Israeli Apartheid...............................................
45
CAIA Re-affirms Solidarity as Canadian Government Escalates Attacks on Indigenous People ............................................................................................................... 47
Canadas Colonial Present ........................................................................................................ 48 Empires Ally: Canadian Foreign Policy ................................................................................... 55 Israel, Racism and the Canadian Media ................................................................................... 62 The Canada Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA) ................................................................ 69 Continued
SeCtIon four: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ..............................................................
73
Palestinian Civil Society Calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel .............. 75 Towards a Global Movement for Palestine .............................................................................. 76 A Selected List of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Initiatives ........................................... 82 The Case for Boycotting Israel ................................................................................................. 85 Unpacking the Israeli Lobbys Arguments ............................................................................... 90 Lessons from the South African Experience............................................................................ 92 From South Africa to Palestine: Lessons for the New Anti-Apartheid Movement ................. 96 Next Steps for the Palestinian Solidarity Movement................................................................ 100
FAQ about Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ................................................................. 83-84
SeCtIon fIve: Palestine Solidarity and the north American Labour Movement ...........
105
CUPE Ontario Resolution No. 50 .......................................................................................... 107 Postal Workers Take Firm Stand to Support Palestinian Workers ........................................... 108 Letter from the President of the COSATU to the President CUPE Ontario ......................... 109 CUPE Ontario Takes Important Step against Israeli Apartheid.............................................. 110 Building Labour Solidarity with Palestine................................................................................ 120 Statement by Labour for Palestine in Response to US Anti-Boycott Statement ..................... 124 US Labor and Gaza .................................................................................................................. 128 A Reply to Bnai Brith Manifesto Denouncing CUPE-Ontarios Boycott of Israel ............... 131 CUPE Boycott Israel Debate Rages On ................................................................................ 113
Campaigns and further resources ........................................................................................... 135
Introduction
In July 2005, over 170 Palestinian organizations
urged the world to adopt a campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel in the manner of South Africa Apartheid. This call was signed by all the main Palestinian trade union federations, as well as refugee, women and student organizations from across Palestine and the Arab world. It represented the broadest political statement in Palestinian history, precipitating a powerful global solidarity campaign that has grown dramatically over the last few years. When this reader was first issued in March 2007, the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israeli apartheid was still embryonic within labour circles in this country. The passing of Resolution 50 by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE Ontario), the first BDS resolution in Canadian labour movement history, was a recent occurrence. Although Resolution 50 inspired many activists and was a powerful awareness-raising tool among the broader public, its longer-term impact was still unclear. Some detractors within the labour movement argued that the resolution was too much, too fast and that now was not the right time to begin arguing for BDS. Others claimed that CUPE Ontario resolution was a one-off exception; unlikely to be replicated in other unions. A little over one year later we can now begin to assess these arguments with confidence. Activists in CUPE Ontario responded to the challenge, leading an education campaign within union locals and committees that has been widely praised as the most effective grassroots campaign in the unions history. Literally thousands of rank and file CUPE members have received material on Resolution 50 or participated in workshops on Palestine. The work has revitalized the CUPE Ontario international solidarity work, building a large, open and
Labour for PaLestine
active member-led committee that is beginning to take up other international solidarity issues with similar energy. The campaign around Resolution 50 has demonstrated the main strategic significance of union resolutions, as a tool to educate and mobilize rank-and-file members, and build an appreciation of international solidarity as an integral component of a fighting labour movement. Resolutions mean nothing if they are not linked to rank-and-file organizing. In April 2008 the BDS movement in Canada received another historic boost. The national convention of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) passed a resolution modeled on CUPE Ontarios Resolution 50. The CUPW resolution committed the union to conducting an education campaign similar to CUPE Ontario and expressed support for the 2005 BDS call from Palestine. The CUPW resolution was doubly significant: not only did it represent the first time a national union in Canada had passed a BDS resolution, but CUPW had also been the first Canadian union to pass a boycott resolution against South African apartheid. The CUPW and CUPE Ontario resolutions indicate that solidarity with Palestinian workers, and the recognition that Israel must be isolated in the manner of South African apartheid, is becoming an established principle of a progressive, principled trade union politics. If we are to wage an effective fight against neo-liberal policies such as privatization, lay-offs and union-busting here in Canada, then we must also stand with workers struggling against oppression internationally. The CUPE Ontario International Solidarity Committee puts it this way: International solidarity is fundamental to a progressive and fighting labour movement. It is not an optional part of labour activism or a form of

charity. International solidarity goes to the heart of what it means to be a labour activist. It means seeing the struggle of our sisters and brothers in other countries as our own struggle. Their victories as our victories. We hope that this new edition of the Labour for Palestine reader continues to strengthen this movement for solidarity with Palestinian workers. The reader is aimed at providing labour movement activists with the information needed to become an effective organizer and defender of Palestinian rights. The first two sections present the basic history of the Palestinian struggle, the comparison with South African apartheid, and the nature of Zionism and colonialism in the Middle East. Subsequent sections look at the role of the Canadian state both at home and abroad, the BDS movement globally, and the debates and lessons from the CUPE Ontario and CUPW experiences.
The last year has seen a series of horrific attacks by the Israeli state on the Palestinian people. Over 1.5 million people in the Gaza Strip have literally been imprisoned behind a military siege in one of the cruelest examples of collective punishment witnessed in recent times. The year 2008 marks sixty years since the original ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from their homes and lands. Yet despite these ongoing attacks, Palestinians remain as determined as ever to resist and to win justice. The last year has demonstrated unequivocally that our actions here in Canada make a significant and powerful difference to this struggle for freedom. And when we make international solidarity a basic principle of trade unionism, then we also strengthen our capacities to resist and fight back here at home. Labour Committee of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid May 2008
Introduction
section one
background and analysis

this section provides the historical background and analysis necessary to fully understand the struggle against Israeli apartheid. The first few articles examine the history of colonization in Palestine from the 1880s to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.This is followed by some brief facts on the daily life of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and an examination of the similarities between South African apartheid and the practices of the israeli state.
The early history of Colonialism in Palestine: 1880-1967
n 1880, Palestinian Arabs lived in and cultivated almost 100 per cent of Palestine between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In 2008, the Israeli state controls 100 per cent of the same territory. Palestinians have been pushed into small ghettos in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel itself, or live in refugee camps throughout the Middle East. How did this situation come to be? In 1880, the total population of Palestine was about 500,000. At this time, Palestinian Muslims, Christians and Jews lived harmoniously in one society. The territory was part of the Ottoman Empire. Of the total population, around 27,000 were Palestinian Jews, most of who did not subscribe to the idea of a separate Jewish homeland in Palestine. But the Middle East region was a vital strategic area for British and French colonialism. In addition to rich resources (such as cotton in Egypt), the Middle East sat astride the worlds major trade routes. For this reason, prior to the end of the First World War, the British and French made a secret pact in 1916 (called the Sykes-Picot Agreement) to divide the region between themselves in the event of their victory in the war. At the end of World War I, the British and French governments divided up their colonial spoils by drawing lines in the sand across much of the Middle East. Britain took over the administration of Palestine (called the British Mandate of Palestine after 1920). In 1917, the British government made another secret agreement that promised European Jews a homeland in Palestine. Once again, the British calculated that the establishment of a dependent state in Palestine would strengthen their control over the region. It was a remarkable promise considering that Palestinian Arabs (Muslims, Christians and Jews) already inhabited the area and
constituted the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants. Aside from the colonial powers, the main political force behind the colonization of Palestine was the Zionist movement. Zionists argued that Jews would always be persecuted in Europe and that the only solution was to establish a Jewish-only state. In this sense, Zionism accepted the basic premise of anti-Semitism: the inability of Jews and nonJews to live together. At this time, Zionism was a minority current among European Jews. Most Jews in Europe supported left-wing, progressive groups that struggled against anti-Semitism by fighting for revolutionary change and inclusion as equals in Europe. To justify their colonial project, the Zionist movement claimed that Palestine was a land without a people. This phrase is reminiscent of the ideology that always drives settler colonialism: an attempt to deny and erase the presence of the indigenous population and to replace it with the settler identity. Between 1895 and 1945, millions of Jews emigrated from Europe to escape anti-Semitism and the Nazi Holocaust, which killed 6 million Jews. Most went to the United States, Canada and South
Palestine population
1880 Total population Palestinian Arab Jewish 500,000 473,000 94.5% 27,000 5.5% 1914 689,272 629,272 92% 60,000 8% 1947 1,912,112 1,303,887 68% 608,225 32%
SECTION ONE: Background
and Analysis
America but - with the support of the Zionist movement - about 400,000 went to Palestine. In 1947, the US-dominated UN called for the splitting of Palestine into a Jewish state, Israel (56 per cent), an Arab state (43 per cent) and Jerusalem (to be under international supervision). Palestinians opposed this plan (called the Partition Plan) because it gave a majority of their land away (including the most fertile parts) to a minority of new colonizers. In 1947, the Jewish population was only 32 per cent of the entire population and owned only about 6 per cent of the land. The Canadian government was a member of the UN Committee that drew up the Partition Plan, and, ever since, has been a consistent supporter of imperial interest in the region. In late 1947, Zionist militias began organizing attacks against Palestinian villages and towns. These attacks included the murder of unarmed Palestinian men, women and children, with the aim of creating a sense of fear and to drive the population from their lands. From November 1947 - May 1948, prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, over 1/3 of the Palestinian population were driven from their homes and lands as a result of these systematic attacks against civilians. This period has been well-documented by Israeli historians, including
Professor Ilan Pappe in his recent book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. During May 1948, this plan of expulsion rapidly accelerated. About 85% of the Palestinians in what is now Israel were driven from their homes and lands. More than 500 Palestinian villages were razed or existing homes directly expropriated for Jewish settlers; the rivers, hills and valleys were renamed and their Palestinian history erased. Palestinians call this process of ethnic cleansing Al Nakba, or The Catastrophe. On 15 May 1948, Israel was founded on about 78% of historic Palestine. Those Palestinians who fled ended up as refugees in neighboring Arab countries (including Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt). In addition, around 150,000 Palestinians remained and eventually became citizens of the new Israeli state, which, however, officially defined itself on the basis of one ethno-religious group (i.e. as a Jewish State). This Palestinian minority was kept under strict military administration until 1966. This situation remained until 1967, when Israel occupied the remaining areas of Palestine: the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
10
and Analysis
Israel has created in the occupied territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on nationality.This regime is the only one of its kind in the world and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes in the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa. BTselem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights, an Israeli non- governmental organization, on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
The west Bank and Gaza Strip
ollowing its victory in the 1967 War, Israel occupied the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. These occupations have shaped the lives of people in the region for subsequent decades, particularly for the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In the West Bank, following a mere six days of fighting, one-fifth of the Palestinian population were driven from their homes and lands. The vast majority of these people would be prevented from ever returning. Palestinians call this second expulsion (the first being in 1947-1948) the Naqsa (disaster). Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip did not become Israeli citizens but came under Israels political, economic and military control. Israel declared a military government that controlled every aspect of Palestinian life in the occupied territories. Over 2,500 military orders were passed that apply only to Palestinian residents in the area, not to Israeli settlers who are governed by Israeli civil law. This dual, discriminatory system of laws for two people living in the same area is one illustration of the apartheid-like system Israel has established in the West Bank. Beginning immediately after the 1967 occupation, a series of settlement plans were adopted by successive Israeli governments. These plans aimed at colonizing large swathes of land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with Jewish-only Israeli
settlements. These settlements were built on Palestinian land confiscated by the Israeli military and other state bodies. These Israeli settlements are not randomly located but constructed in areas between major Palestinian population centers, above water aquifers and fertile agricultural land. In some cases, such as the West Bank city of Hebron, Israeli settlements were built in the center of Palestinian towns. These settlements are connected to each other by a road network that was clearly conceived as being Israeli-only. Not only do they avoid Palestinian population centres but Israeli military vehicles patrol them and stop, search and detain Palestinians at will. Palestinians are forced to carry different colour ID cards at all times. During the 1990s this system of discrimination became even more explicit with the introduction of different colour number plates to identify Palestinian vehicles. In 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Many people believed this agreement would lead to the end of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and an eventual Palestinian state in these areas. While settlements were designated a final status issue, the Israeli Labour government launched a massive settlement expansion immediately after the Oslo Accords were signed. Through a policy of attracting settlers by offering large economic incentives, the number of Israeli settlers living in settlements in
and Analysis
11
Daily life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Deaths According to the internationally renowned Israeli human rights organization, BTselem, 2340 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since January 2004 (figure to March 2008). In the same time frame, 209 Israelis have been killed in Palestinian attacks (BTselem). According to the Palestinian Red Crescent (a full member of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies), two Palestinians have been killed every day of the last eight years, on average, by israeli forces. Imprisonment As of May 2008, an estimated 11,000 Palestinians were being held in Israeli prisons and detention centers (BTselem). Over 350 Palestinian children are in detention (Defence for Children International Palestine Section). Over 1000 Palestinians are being held without trial or charge (BTselem). Almost every Palestinian family has had a family member arrested or detained by the Israeli military. Israels use of torture has been widely condemned by UN bodies and international human rights organizations including Amnesty International. Housing Israel engages in a policy of house demolitions as a punitive measure, and also as a means of removing Palestinians from particular areas. Since 1967, over 18,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished by the Israeli military, leaving 70,000 Palestinians homeless. In the Gaza Strip alone, 12, 712 people have been made homeless due to house demolitions since September 2000 (BTselem). Water 75 percent of the Occupied West Bank & Gaza Strip renewable water resources are appropriated by israel. Three million Palestinians are allowed to use 250 million cubic metres per annum (83 cubic metres for each Palestinian per year) while six million Israelis enjoy the use of 2.0 billion cubic metres (333 cubic metre for each Israeli per year), which means that one Israeli consumes as much water as do four Palestinians. Each Israeli settler is allocated 1,450 cubic metres of water per year. The World Health Organizations recognized minimum of domestic water consumption is 100 litres per capita per day. The current domestic water supply for Palestinians is only 57 to 76 liters per capita per day. Economy The Palestinian economy is completely dependent upon Israel due to Israeli control of movement and goods in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 2006, 56.8% of Palestinians were classified as living in poverty (OCHA 2008a). The Israeli siege of Gaza has produced a humanitarian disaster. Around 80% of families in Gaza rely on food aid to survive (approximately 1.1 million people) (OCHA 2008a). The majority of Gazan households have power cuts of at least eight hours per day and there is a 60-70 percent shortage reported in the diesel required for hospital power generators. (OCHA 2008b). Unemployment levels in Gaza exceeded 35% in 2007 (OCHA 2008a). Sources: BTselem Website www.btselem.org Defence for Children International Palestine Section, www. dci-pal.org Palestinian Red Crescent, www.palestinercs.org/ United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA 2008a) Socio-Economic Fact Sheet, April 2008. http:// www.ochaopt.org United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA 2008b) Electricity Shortages in the Gaza Strip: Situation Report 8 February 2008.
12
and Analysis
the West Bank and Gaza Strip doubled from 1994 to the beginning of the year 2000. In July 2000, US President Bill Clinton invited Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to Camp David to conclude negotiations on the long-overdue final status agreement. Barak proclaimed his red lines: Israel would not return to its pre-1967 borders; East Jerusalem with its 175,000 Jewish settlers would remain under Israeli sovereignty; Israel would annex settlement blocs in the West Bank containing some 80 percent of the 180,000 Jewish settlers; and Israel would accept no legal or moral responsibility for the seven million Palestinian refugees. Palestinians sought Israeli withdrawal from the vast majority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem, and recognition of an independent state in those territories.
The failure of the Camp David negotiations in mid-2000 was followed by the provocative visit on 28 September 2000 of Ariel Sharon to Haram Al Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) in Jerusalem. Sharon is a figure head of the Israeli right wing. Palestinians hold him responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians during Israels invasion of Lebanon in 1982 when he served as defence minister. His visit to a Muslim holy site, accompanied by 1000 armed guards, provoked large Palestinian protests in Jerusalem. Israeli soldiers killed six unarmed protesters during these demonstrations. These killings inaugurated the Second Intifada, which Israel has attempted to suppress through widespread collective punishment of Palestinian civilians, assassination of Palestinian militants, and mass arrest campaigns.
Palestine before 1948
Occupied West Bank and Gaza 1967
The Wall 2005
and Analysis
13
The Wall
In November 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced approval of plans to build a barrier in the West Bank. Construction of the Wall began in June 2002 and consists of a network of concrete walls and electric fences. The eventual length of the Wall will be 730 km, creating three Palestinian ghettoes in the West Bank and locking thousands of Palestinians inside their towns and villages. In July 2002, the West Bank city of Qalqilya was completely surrounded by an eight metre high concrete wall, cutting off the 41,600 residents from the outside world. An Israeli military checkpoint marks the only exit and entrance in and out of the city. The unemployment rate in Qalqilya rose to 67 percent in the wake of the Walls construction and 10 percent of the population were forced to leave the city in order to find livelihood elsewhere. On July 9, 2004, the worlds highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, determined that the wall is illegal. The court ordered Israel to dismantle the wall and pay compensation to Palestinians, who have suffered devastating losses of livelihood and agricultural land as a result of its construction. Most importantly, the ICJ ruled that all nations have an obligationto ensure Israel complies with international humanitarian law. Nevertheless, Israel has completely ignored the ICJ ruling and continues to construct the Wall. Industrial zones to exploit cheap Palestinian labour are planned for the areas between the Wall and the 1967 armistice line. These zones and high-tech gates to monitor movement through the Wall will be constructed with World Bank assistance.
BanTusTans
The end result of the process inaugurated by the 1967 occupation of the West Bank is the confinement of Palestinians to scattered population centers divided from one another by Israeli settlements, military checkpoints, walls and Israeli-only highways. The Wall, and its associated infrastructure of settlements, military zones and roads, annexes some 48 percent of the West Bank. This will leave Palestinians living on approximately 12 percent of historic Palestine. As part of the evolving system of apartheid mechanisms in the West Bank, the Israeli govern14
ment plans to construct a further 500 km of Jewishonly roads. These roads will connect Israeli settlements to each other and population centers inside Israel. According to government plans, 98 percent of the Israeli settler population in the West Bank will be included in areas that Israel plans to annex. The model for the West Bank can be seen in the Gaza Strip. Only 45 km long and about 10 to 12 km wide, with over 1.5 million Palestinians crowded into shantytowns Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth. Over 80 percent of the Gazan population are refugees denied the right to return to their homes and lands from which they were expelled in 1948. A massive electric fence surrounds the Strip and is guarded by the Israeli military. Israel has continued to prevent movement in and out of the area while subjecting its residents to repeated military incursions, shelling, and house demolitions. The reality of life in the Gaza Strip reveals the future of the Palestinian ghettoes in the West Bank. This future can be described as bantustanization, in reference to apartheid South Africa. From the 1950s onwards, the white South African government established pockets of self-rule known as bantustans in isolated and economically unviable areas for the rural black population. Apartheid was sustained through a superstructure of laws and regulations similar to those used by the Israeli occupation; 87 percent of South African land was reserved by the Land Acts for exclusive white ownership and occupation. Millions of blacks were punished for violating pass laws that controlled their movements and required them to carry special identification passes. It is less widely known that the bantustans and pass laws integral to South African apartheid had their origins in Canada. The Canadian Indian Act (1876) established reserves for native people, and codified in law the separate legal status of indigenous people and Canadian citizens. Any indigenous person who wished to leave the reserves required a permit from the Indian Agent a person appointed by the Canadian state as their proxy on the reserve. This permit system was directly transferred to 1950s South African apartheid. Furthermore, the 1876 Act made it illegal for indigenous people to sell or produce goods without written permission of the Indian
and Analysis
Agent and permitted indigenous children to be removed from the reserves to missionary schools. It is for these reasons that in September 2001, 3,000 non-government organizations at the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, adopted a declaration condemning Israels systematic perpetration of racist crimes including war crimes and described Israels brand of apartheid as a crime against humanity characterised by separation and segregation. In July 2005, over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called on the world to undertake a global campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions as a form of non-violent pressure on Israel to comply with international law by: Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; Landownership in Palestine and the UN Partition Plan, 1947
Jewish-owned land, 1947 Jewish state according to UN-Partition Plan, 1947 arab state according to UN-Partition Plan, 1947
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. Boycott, divestment and sanctions formed a critical part of global efforts to end South African apartheid. They were an expression of popular refusal to participate in and sustain the structures of racial discrimination and oppression. It was widely seen as morally repugnant to be openly associated with South African apartheid. Today we have an opportunity to once again be part of a global movement for justice.
Palestinian villages depopulated in 1948 and 1967 and razed by Israel

Jewish-owned land, 1947 state of israel according to the Armistice Agreement, 1948 Palestinian villages depopulated in 1948 and 1967 and razed by Israel The West Bank and Gaza Strip
Haifa Nazareth
Haifa Nazareth
Nablus
Nablus
Tel Aviv Jaffa
Tel Aviv Jaffa
Jerusalem
Jerusalem
Gaza
Hebron
Gaza
Hebron
Beersheba
Beersheba
Maps courtesy the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA).
and Analysis
15
An abridged timeline of the history of Palestine

1516-1918 1881-1903 1914-1918 Ottoman (Turkish) Empire controls most of the Middle East. During the 1880s, there is the beginning of an Arab movement for independence from the Ottoman Empire. First wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine in context of Russian pogroms; Dreyfus affair in France reflects widespread European anti-Semitism. World War I; Britain makes secret agreement with France to divide Middle East into colonial spheres of influence (Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916). The 1917 Balfour Declaration expresses British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. End of the Ottoman Empire. Britain controls Palestine through the British Mandate. Britain requests that the UN deal with the question of Palestine; UN General Assembly Resolution 181 calls for Palestine to be divided into a Jewish state (56 percent of Palestine), and an Arab state (43 percent of Palestine). Zionist militias organize attacks on Palestinian civilians including a bombing campaign against Palestinian villages and neighborhoods. These attacks accelerate in the lead up to May 1948. The British mandate ends and the state of Israel is established on 77 percent of British Mandatory Palestine, including some areas designated for a Palestinian Arab state; Jordan and Egypt hold the West Bank and the Gaza Strip respectively, Jerusalem is divided; Around 800,000 Palestinians are expelled from their homes and lands and are not allowed to return; U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 supports right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands. Large-scale Jewish immigration to Israel from Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Israeli Law of Return and Absentee Property Law enacted; extensive confiscation of Palestinian property occurs in the new Israeli state. Palestinian citizens of Israel are placed under military rule until 1966. June (Six Day) War begins when Israel attacks Egypt, claiming it is acting preemptively; Israel occupies West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egyptian Sinai, and Syrian Golan Heights, expands Jerusalem boundaries and extends Israeli law over East Jerusalem; U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 calls for withdrawal of Israeli troops from territories newly occupied. Palestinian population is placed under Israeli military occupation. Israel begins to establish Jewish-only settlements in the newly occupied territories. Predominantly nonviolent (demonstrations, strikes) uprising known as the first Intifada launched by the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip against occupation. Israel drastically restricts Palestinian movement between Occupied Palestinian Territories (except East Jerusalem) and Israel; Israel and the PLO sign Declaration of Principles (the Oslo Accords) on interim self-government arrangements. Oslo II Accords establish three types of control in the West Bank (Area A: direct Palestinian control, Area B: Palestinian civilian control and Israeli security control, Area C: Israeli control). Israel retains military control of the vast majority of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip doubles due to new settlement construction and attractive incentives offered by the Israeli government to relocate to these areas. Israel begins the construction of a network of highways that are off-limits to Palestinians. Clinton-led Camp David II summit and negotiations end in failure; new Palestinian uprising (the Second Intifada) begins in September 2000.
1918-1948 1947
1948
1948-1958 1950
1967
1968-1970 1987-1993 1993
1995
1994-2000
2000
16
and Analysis
2001
Three thousand non-government organizations at the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, condemn Israels systematic perpetration of racist crimes including war crimes and describe Israels brand of apartheid as a crime against humanity characterised by separation and segregation. Construction of the Apartheid Wall begins in June. By July, the city of Qalqilya is completely surrounded and cut off from the rest of the West Bank. The worlds highest court, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, declares that the Wall is illegal and must be dismantled. Israel ignores the ruling and refuses to comply. Over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations call on the people of the world to undertake a global campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions as a non-violent measure to force Israel to comply with international law.
2002 2004 2005
Comparisons of South African and Israeli Apartheid

InTroducTIon
The legacy of apartheid has led many South Africans to play a leading role in the struggle for Palestinian freedom. Prominent South Africans who lived under apartheid have drawn the analogy with Israel: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Catholic Archbishop supported this analogy first in 1989 when he said I am a black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank could describe [past] events in South Africa. Later, in 2002, Tutu said that he was very deeply distressed by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa and that he saw the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about. Tutu also added that Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through, and stated that a letter signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans had drawn an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. John Dugard, a South African professor of international law and an ad hoc Judge on the International Court of Justice, serving as the Special
Rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories described the situation in the West Bank as an apartheid regime ... worse than the one that existed in South Africa. Farid Esack, a South African writer, scholar and anti-apartheid activist, and currently William Henry Bloomberg Visiting Professor at Harvard Divinity School, stated that the logic of apartheid is akin to the logic of Zionism, life for the Palestinians is infinitely worse than what we ever had experienced under apartheid, and the price they (Palestinians) have had to pay for resistance much more horrendous. Willie Madisha, President of the Congress of South African Trade Unions stated, As someone who lived in apartheid South Africa and who has visited Palestine I say with confidence that Israel is an apartheid state. In fact, I believe that some of the atrocities committed by the erstwhile apartheid regime in South Africa pale in comparison to those committed against the Palestinians. South African anti-apartheid activists have a close connection with Palestine not only because of moral comparisons with their anti-racist struggle. Israel was for many years one of the key supporters of South African apartheid. Hendrik Verwoerd, former prime minister of South Africa and widely
and Analysis
17
considered the architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, stated in 1961 that Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state. In 1976, Israel invited the South African prime minister, John Vorster a former Nazi sympathiser who was interned during the Second World War because of his pro-Nazi views to make a state visit. Israel was one of the major arms suppliers to South Africa despite the international embargo and, by 1980, no less than 35 percent of Israels arms exports were going to South Africa. The head of South African military industry said in 1982, Israeli technological assistance permits South Africa to evade the arms embargo
imposed upon it because of its racial policies. Israel was also centrally involved in the transfer of nuclear technology to apartheid South Africa. There are, of course, differences between the South African and Israeli Apartheid systems. In South Africa, the black population constituted the vast majority of the population and was divided from the white minority by laws based on skin color. In Palestine, there are two different groups of Palestinians living under Israeli apartheid: Palestinians who are citizens of Israel and Palestinians living under Israeli occupation and military administration in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians
What is Apartheid?
Apartheid is the Afrikaner word for apartness and to most people describes the system of racial discrimination that existed in South Africa until 1994. the international convention on the suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which 101 states are a party to, defines apartheid as similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them. These practices include Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; . Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; . Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour; . Persecution of organisations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid. South African apartheid was an extension and formalization of the southern African colonization project since the 18th century. Some of its policies were explicitly modelled on The Canadian Indian Act (1876), which established reserves for native people and codified in law the separate legal status of Indians and Canadian citizens. Any native who wished to leave the reserves required a permit from the Indian Agent a person appointed by the Canadian state as their proxy on the reserve. This permit system was directly transferred to 1950s South African apartheid. Furthermore, the 1876 Act made it illegal for native people to sell or produce goods without written permission of the Indian Agent and permitted native children to be removed from the reserves to missionary schools.
18
and Analysis
living under occupation do not have citizenship in any country nor do they have voting rights in Israel, but they are subject to the laws and policies of the Israeli government and military. Palestinians who live inside Israel constitute around 20 percent of the population. Although these Palestinians have Israeli citizenship, they are systematically denied equal rights with Jewish citizens. Furthermore, Israel refuses to allow the return of Palestinians (more than three-quarters of the Palestinian population at the time) who were expelled or fled during the atrocities that accompanied the establishment of Israel and who have not abandoned any of their commitment to the land they lived on for generations. In the South African case, the black population formed a cheap and highly exploited working class in the mines, factories, fields, and in domestic work. Palestinians inside Israel were systematically excluded from participation in the labour force through policies that promoted Hebrew Labour in order to provide more job opportunities for Jewish settlers. Underlying this notion of Hebrew Labour
was the idea that labour was one of the ways to consolidate Jewish hegemony in Palestine, and Palestinians were confined to jobs that the Jewish settler population refused to work in. For the first decades after 1967, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip formed a cheap pool of labour concentrated in the sectors of construction and agriculture. Since the early 1990s, however, Palestinians working in these sectors have been systematically replaced by highly exploited short-term migrant labour. Currently, Israel is constructing industrial zones with the advice and assistance of the World Bank and other international bodies to utilize Palestinian labour in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Despite these differences, the system of laws and policies implemented since 1948 in Israel, and 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, closely resemble South African apartheid. These are policies of segregation and discrimination, designed to exclude Palestinians from the political, social, economic and cultural life and create separate reserves and ghettos.
Bilin, Palestine, December, 2006. The crowd, chanting slogans calling on Palestinian factions to unite in struggle against the occupation, continued towards the gate in the wall, carrying olive branches. On arriving, demonstrators found soldiers standing between them and the gate. Photo: Keren Manor/activestills.org
and Analysis
19
South African Apartheid

South African apartheid was designed to uphold the rule of the white minority and its domination over the black majority. The latter was systematically excluded from the political process, and subject to racialized and discriminatory laws. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites.
Israeli Apartheid
With the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, three-quarters of the Palestinian population was expelled. These Palestinians and their descendants are forbidden from returning to their homes and lands. Palestinians now constitute the largest refugee population in the world. Yet, any person of Jewish background from anywhere in the world is able to automatically gain Israeli citizenship. This is called the Law of Return. Within its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. Nevertheless, around 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Palestinian (distinct from Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Palestinian citizens have the right to vote. Yet it is forbidden for anyone to run for the Israeli Knesset without supporting the Jewish character of the Israeli state. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinians are subject to Israeli military law. Israeli settlers living in the same area are governed by Israeli civil law. Military law is highly discriminatory and controls every aspect of Palestinian life. There are laws that condemn Palestinians for up to 10 years in prison for carrying a Palestinian flag or attending an unauthorized meeting. Other laws define the age of a Palestinian child differently from an Israeli child so that Palestinian children are arrested and treated as adults. Palestinians are frequently arrested by the Israeli military for violating military laws and brought before military courts that are presided over by military personnel many of whom have no legal education or training. These courts are often described as Kangaroo Courts. In contrast, Israeli settlers are brought before civil courts with the usual safeguards of judicial process. In 2003, a law was passed that effectively forbids Israeli citizens from marrying Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
In colonial and then apartheid South Africa, 87 percent of the land was reserved for whites. Nonwhites were permitted access to only 13 percent of the land. The apartheid South Africa Natives Land Act, No 27 of 1913 and The Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923, made it illegal for blacks to purchase or lease land from whites except in reserves.
Israel has reserved 93 percent of the land in Israel proper most of it either belongs to Palestinian refugees or was expropriated from Palestinians - for Jewish development through state ownership, the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli Lands Authority. Through dubious and discriminatory legal methods, Israel has declared most of the lands in the West Bank as State land. This land is mainly used for the construction of illegal Jewish-only settlements and highways. Many Jewish-only settlements are built on private land owned by Palestinians. Around 50 percent of the West Bank will be annexed following the completion of the Wall and the absorption of Israeli settlements into Israel. Palestinians will thus be confined to areas constituting around 12 percent of historic Palestine.
20
and Analysis

In Apartheid South Africa, the government deliberately starved the black population of education, health and social services while funding services for the white minority. In 1978, for example, the average education expenditure for black pupils was US$45 while it was US$696 for white pupils. There was one doctor for every 44,000 blacks where for the white population the ratio was 1 for every 400.
Israeli Apartheid
Israels Palestinian citizens are subject to vast discrimination in funding and access to services. In 1965, Israel declared the lands and homes of 100,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel as unrecognized. They still exist, but are denied electricity, water, sewage and other basic services. They do not appear on maps. In the 2002 budget, Israels housing ministry spent about $30 per person in Palestinian communities inside Israel compared with up to $3250 per person in Jewish ones. The same year, the health ministry allocated just 1.6m shekels ($433,700) to Palestinian communities of its 277m-shekel ($76 million) budget to develop healthcare facilities. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel has destroyed thousands of homes, schools, and hospitals. Since 1967, over 12,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished by the Israeli military, leaving 70,000 Palestinians homeless. Palestinian citizens of Israel are prevented from working in specific jobs through conditions that cite military service as a prerequisite even though these jobs have nothing to do with military experience. Palestinian citizens of Israel do not serve in the army while most Jewish citizens are required to serve by law. Discrimination is also sanctioned on the basis of those who are citizens due to the law of return (i.e. are Jewish citizens of Israel). Only five per cent of Israeli civil servants are Palestinian, and a high proportion of those are hired to deal with other Palestinians. The foreign and finance ministries employ fewer than a dozen Palestinian citizens of Israel between them, when their combined staff totals more than 1,700 Jews. Until recently, the Bank of Israel and the state electricity company did not hire a single Palestinian. Israeli companies and businesses are forbidden from hiring Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip except for a small number who are granted permits.
Apartheid laws reserved jobs for the white and mixed-race population groups.
In 1950, the Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified into one of three categories: white, black (African), or colored (of mixed descent). All blacks were required to carry pass books containing fingerprints, photos and information on access to non-black areas.
Palestinian citizens of Israel are required to carry ID cards that identify them as non-Jewish through an ID number and the way birth dates are recorded. The information on these cards is linked to a central database that provides further details (such as where they live, if they have ever been arrested, etc). Movement and entry to specific areas can be restricted through the use of these cards. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, all movement is tightly restricted and Palestinians are required to carry different coloured ID Cards. Entry and exit from the Palestinian ghettoes within the West Bank is impossible without these cards and a further permission to travel that is granted by the military occupation authorities. Furthermore, Palestinians are forced to use different coloured license plates that identify their place of origin. There are many roads in the West Bank that Palestinians are not permitted to travel on because they have been declared Israeli-only.
and Analysis
21

In 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act established a basis for ethnic government in African reserves, known as homelands. These homelands were independent states to which each African was assigned by the government according to the record of origin (which was frequently inaccurate). All political rights, including voting, held by an African were restricted to the designated homeland. Through this artificial mechanism they became citizens of a homeland that many had never seen, losing their rights in South Africa including any means of involvement with the South African Parliament which held complete hegemony over the homelands. From 1976 to 1981, four of these homelands were created, denationalizing nine million South Africans. Most homeland administrations refused the nominal independence, maintaining pressure for political rights within the country as a whole. Nevertheless, Africans living in the homelands needed passports to enter South Africa aliens in their own country.
Israeli Apartheid
Since 1967, Israel has pursued a policy of bantustanization in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians have been herded into isolated areas divided from one another by Jewish-only settlements and highways, military checkpoints and most recently the Wall. Israel controls all movement into these bantustans, exports and imports, electricity, water, telephone lines and even the Internet. Travel between the West Bank and Gaza Strip bantustans is forbidden for Palestinians. In the West Bank, travel between the bantustans is regulated by the Israeli military and requires ID cards and travel permission. All Palestinian passports must be approved by the Israeli military and permission to leave the country is required from the Israeli government. All border crossings are controlled by the Israeli military. In 2006, Israel adopted a policy of denying entry to the country of any person of Palestinian descent even if they carry citizenship from another country such as the US or Canada.
Jerusalem, Jan 6, 2007. Photo: Freepal
22
and Analysis

In 1953, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed, which empowered the government to declare stringent states of emergency and increased penalties for protesting against or supporting the repeal of a law. The penalties included fines, imprisonment and whippings. The penalties imposed on political protest, even non-violent protest, were severe. During the states of emergency which continued intermittently until 1989, anyone could be detained without a hearing by a low-level police official for up to six months. Thousands of individuals died in custody, frequently after gruesome acts of torture. Those who were tried were sentenced to death, banished, or imprisoned for life, like Nelson Mandela.
Israeli Apartheid
As of mid-2008, 11,000 Palestinians were being held as political prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention centers. These include a small number of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Israel regularly practices torture against prisoners and has been condemned by UN bodies and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International. Over 1,000 Palestinians are held as administrative detainees, meaning they are being held without charge or trial. These administrative detainee orders can be issued for up to six months and then renewed indefinitely. Some Palestinians have spent more than six years in administrative detention. Over 350 Palestinian children are being held in detention as political prisoners. In violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip are transferred out of the occupied territory into prisons in Israel proper. Most prisoners are prevented from receiving family visits and are not allowed to make telephone calls even at times of the death of family members. Palestinian citizens of Israel are frequently harassed and spied upon by the Israeli secret intelligence (Shabak). The Shabak places teachers in schools in order to watch the activity of Palestinian teachers. A member of the Shin Bet (Israeli Security Service) sits on the committee that appoints teachers.
and Analysis
23
SECTION TWO
Zionism, the Israeli Labour Movement and Palestinian Workers

One of the many myths about Israel is the claim that Zionism is a left-wing or socialist ideology. It is critical for trade unionists and workers to understand the real nature of Zionist ideology and its close relationship with colonialism and imperialism. The first article examines the context in which Zionism arose, and the strong support it received from Britain and the US in the colonization of Palestine. One of the key institutions of this colonization project was the Histadrut, the so-called Israeli Trade Union Federation. The real nature of the Histadrut as an instrument of racism and exclusion is examined in the second article by Katherine Nastovski. In February 2007, all workers organization in Palestine re-iterated a call to boycott the Histadrut which we reprint below. The final article, an interview with an activist in the Stop the Wall Campaign in Palestine, looks at the current situation of Palestinian workers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the role of industrial zones in binding the Palestinian economy into a dependent relationship with israel.
By Lance Selfa (reprinted from International Socialist Review Issue 4, Spring 1998)
Zionism: false Messiah
ifty years ago in May, Israels first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed the founding of the State of Israel. Immediately, Jewish commandos in Palestine launched what Israel called its War of Independence. When Israel concluded an armistice with the armies of Egypt, Transjordan and Syria in 1949, more than 750,000 Palestinians had been forced to flee from their homes. They became refugees from their own country, which the Jewish Zionist armies now controlled. The founding of Israel marked the culmination of a 50-year-long campaign, waged by political Zionists, to establish a Jewish state. The Zionists claimed that they expressed world Jewrys yearning for national liberation. Yet, if Zionism was a movement for national liberation, it was like no other. Rather than seeking to break free from imperialism, it actively courted patronage from imperialist powers. Rather than promising self-determination to the people of Palestine the vast majority of whom were Arab it expelled them. And rather than representing a widely popular expression of the fight against national oppression, Zionism counted as little more than a sect for most of its existence prior to the Second World War. No doubt all sorts of distorted history and ideological claptrap will accompany the medias celebration of Israels 50th anniversary. This is understandable, if only because the real history of Zionism and Israel is so sordid.
W haT Is ZIonIsm?
Political Zionism, a doctrine which, starting from the postulate of the incompatibility of the Jews and the Gentiles, advocated massive emigration to an underdeveloped country with the aim of establishing a Jewish state, developed as a response
SECTION TWO: Zionism, the
to an upsurge of anti-Jewish racism (anti-Semitism) in Europe at the end of the last century. In Western Europe, the formation of openly anti-Semitic political parties challenged the assumption of many middle-class Jews that they could simply blend into (or assimilate into) non-Jewish society. In the Russian Empire, where the majority of world Jewry lived, Jews fell victim as the feudal order gave way to capitalist economic development. As feudalism collapsed, Jews lost the specific roles they had played as money lenders and organizers of commerce in the feudal economy. Forced out of the feudal economy, Jewish artisans and shopkeepers fell into competition with non-Jews (Gentiles). Meanwhile, capitalist development destroyed the artisanal economy, turning artisans and craftspeople into wage workers. These two processes the destruction of the feudal economy and the undermining of the artisanal economy combined in less than 50 years to create a massive Jewish working class in Eastern Europe. These wrenching changes in the position of Jews in society impelled millions of Jews to emigrate from Eastern Europe. Those who stayed behind often faced pogroms, anti-Jewish riots. Taking advantage of rising anti-Semitism among the Gentile middle class and seeking to keep the Jewish working class divided from its Gentile brothers and sisters, Tsarist police stirred up pogroms against the Jews. This atmosphere of despair and oppression stirred several responses in the Jewish population, among them a growing nationalism. Nathan Weinstock emphasizes that ... Jewish nationalism, in particular, its Zionist variant, was an absolutely new conception born of the socio-political context of Eastern Europe in the 19th century. For centuries, the idea of a return to Zion (i.e., the Holy Land in Palestine) occupied a significant place in JudaIsraeli Labour Movement and Palestinian Workers 27
ism, but this belief had no political significance. Passovers ritual toasts to next year in Jerusalem didnt imply the desire to found a Jewish state with its eternal capital there. Jewish religious pilgrims emigrated to Palestine in the late 1800s to form religious communities, not to establish a state. Yet political Zionism had just that goal in mind. Political Zionism received its most powerful statement in The Jewish State, an 1896 tract by Jewish Austrian journalist Theodore Herzl, considered the father of political Zionism. Herzl, a widely traveled man, covered the 1894 Paris trial of Colonel Albert Dreyfus, a Jewish military officer whom French military authorities framed as a spy. The Dreyfus Affair brought out shocking displays of anti-Semitism from official French society. On the other hand, it also spurred an international antiracist campaign led by the Gentile journalist and novelist Emile Zola. Mass pressure which the socialist movement helped to organize forced the French government to retry Dreyfus. The courts later found extenuating circumstances to lessen Dreyfus sentence. The outcry against the Dreyfus trial dealt severe blows to the French right and institutions like the army and the Catholic Church, which stoked anti-Semitism. One could have read the Dreyfus case as an example of the potential for Jews and non-Jews to unite to fight anti-Semitism. Herzl did not. As he later wrote in his Diary: In Paris ... I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to combat anti-Semitism. Herzls pardoning of anti-Semitism reflected a core assumption of Zionism a belief that all nonJews are anti-Semites. Anti-Semitism is like a psychic affliction, it is hereditary and as a disease has been incurable for 2,000 years, wrote Leo Pinsker, a Zionist contemporary of Herzl. If persecution or death awaited Jews who tried to assimilate into largely Gentile societies, then the only solution to the Jewish problem would be the physical separation of Jews and non-Jews. It followed that only a Jewish state could provide a haven from persecution. On this point, the Zionists and anti-Semites converged. Both believed Jews to be a foreign presence in Gentile society. And both believed that Gentile society would be better off without Jews.
28
Herzl convened the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. Two hundred delegates from 17 countries authorized the creation of the World Zionist Organization to campaign for a publicly recognized, legally secured homeland in Palestine. Later, Herzl modestly claimed: If I were to sum up the Basel congress in a single phrase, I would say, In Basel, I created the Jewish State. Yet Herzl found one major problem in building the Jewish state in Palestine. Very few Jews were interested in it. Between 1880 and 1929, almost four million Jews emigrated from Russia, Austria-Hungary, Poland, Romania and other countries. Only 120,000 of them immigrated to Palestine. More than three million immigrated to the US and Canada. In 1914, there were only about 12,000 members of Zionist organizations in the US At the same time, there were as many Jewish members of the Socialist Party in the Lower East Side neighborhoods of New Yorks Manhattan!
socIalIsm and The F IghT agaInsT anTI-semITIsm
Unlike Herzl, socialists defended Jews who faced persecution. Socialists also combated antiJewish racism as a poison to the workers movement. In this period, Auguste Bebel, a leader of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), denounced anti-Semitism as the socialism of fools for diverting workers from their true enemy, the ruling class, onto Jewish scapegoats. Karl Kautsky, another German SPD leader, argued that the differentiation of the Jewish population into classes meant that the condition of the Jews would be bound up inextricably with the overall working-class movement. Connecting the fight against anti-Semitism to the fight for workers power became the Marxist approach to fighting anti-Semitism. Because socialists stressed the need to fight anti-Semitism in the countries where most Jews lived, the socialist movement recruited Jews in large numbers. Many Jews played active roles as founders, leaders and activists in the socialist parties in Europe. Count Witte, the Tsars finance minister, once complained to Herzl that Jews comprise about 50 percent of the membership of the revolutionary parties, while constituting only five percent of the Russian Empires population. One such party that earned Wittes
Israeli Labour Movement and Palestinian Workers
hatred was the General Jewish Workers League, known as the Jewish Bund. The Bund, launched in 1897 the same year as Herzls Zionist Congress became Russias first mass socialist organization. It bitterly opposed the Zionists calls for a Jewish state. Over the course of the next decade, the Bund grew among Jewish workers, swelling to 40,000 members in Russia during the 1905 Russian Revolution. In the revolutionary period, Jewish socialists both in the Bund and in the other socialist parties assumed leadership of the working-class and communal organizations in Jewish communities. The Bund opposed political Zionism, but it accommodated to Jewish nationalism. Because of this, Lenin and other Russian revolutionaries engaged in fierce polemics with Bund leaders. In the 1903 founding congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), Bund leaders argued for the official right to represent and to speak for Jewish workers inside the broader Russian socialist movement. Lenin and prominent Jewish socialists such as Martov and Trotsky opposed the Bund. Lenin argued the Bund was wrong to legitimize Jewish isolation, by propagating the idea of a Jewish nation . Socialists task was not to segregate nations, but to unite the workers of all nations, Lenin later wrote. Our banner does not carry the slogan national culture but international culture. The Bund lost the vote to represent Jewish workers and subsequently left the RSDLP. The 1917 October Revolution showed what the socialist strategy for Jewish emancipation meant in practice. In a country where the Tsar and his henchman used anti-Semitism to divide workers, Russian workers elected to leading roles in the revolutionary government Jewish Bolsheviks like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sverdlov. The revolution declared freedom of religion and abolished Tsarist restrictions on education and residence for Jews. During the 1918-1922 Civil War against counterrevolutionary armies which slaughtered Jews by the thousands, the revolutionary Red Army meted out stern punishment including execution to any pogromists in its ranks. In the workers government, Yiddish was given equal status with other languages. A Commisariat of Jewish Affairs and a special Jewish Commission inside the Bolshevik Party simultaneously worked to involve Jews in the
affairs of the workers state and to win the Jewish masses to socialism. The revolutions early years saw an unprecedented flowering of Yiddish and Jewish cultural life. In 1926-27, over half of the Jewish school population attended Yiddish schools and 10 state theaters performed Yiddish plays. By the late 1920s, nearly 40 percent of the Jewish working population worked for the government. Thus, by the 1920s, the Zionists had been marginalized on all sides. The majority of the worlds Jews clearly showed their desire to emigrate to Western countries. And thousands of Jews who remained in Eastern Europe fought for a better life, winning solidarity from many of their Gentile brothers and sisters. By 1927, as many people left Palestine as migrated to it. The entire Zionist enterprise seemed in doubt.
appealIng To ImperIalIsm
When they embarked on their campaign for a Jewish homeland, the Zionists didnt let any ideological attachment to Palestine stand in their way. In fact, in the first years after Herzl formed the World Zionist Organization, Zionists debated a number of alternative targets for colonization: Uganda, Angola, North Africa. In 1903, Herzl accepted a British government proposal to colonize Jews in Uganda, a decision which proved controversial in Zionist ranks. Herzls death in 1904 put an end to colonization schemes outside of Palestine. Yet the debate on alternative sites for the Jewish state exposed the Zionist enterprise in two respects. First, it showed that political Zionism placed the colonizing project ahead of any 2,000-year longing for Jewish people to return to Palestine. Second, it showed that, from its inception, Zionism depended on European powers sponsorship of its colonial-settler aims. Early Zionists made no secret that they hoped the Jewish state to be what Herzl called: a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. Herzls writings abound with praise for the leading imperialist powers in Europe. Herzl admired the German Kaisers dictatorship: To live under the protection of a strong, great, moral, splendidly governed and thoroughly organized Germany is certain to have most salutary effects upon the national character of the Jews. In 1902, he wrote to Lord Rothschild,
Israeli Labour Movement and Palestinian Workers 29
a British Zionist with connections in the highest reaches of the British state: So far, you [the British empire] still have elbow room. Nay, you may claim high credit from your government if you strengthen British influences in the Near East by a substantial colonization of our people at the strategic point where Egyptian and Indo-Persian interests converge. Zionisms founders exuded pro-imperialist racism against what they considered the backward peoples of Asia and Africa. When it came to seeking imperialist sponsors, the Zionists had no scruples about dealing with any regime, no matter how rotten or anti-Semitic. Herzl himself negotiated for increased Jewish emigration to Palestine with Vyacheslav von Plehve, the Russian Tsars Interior Minister and architect of one of the worst pogroms in history at Kishinev in the Russian Empire in 1903. During the First World War, leading Zionists ingratiated themselves to British imperialism. They hoped that Britain would reward them after it defeated the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine. They achieved their goal with the 1917 declaration by Tory politician Lord Balfour. The Balfour Declaration proclaimed British support for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people under British protection. That Balfour had sponsored legislation to bar Jewish immigrants from Britain in 1905 didnt faze the Zionists. The Balfour Declaration grew out of discussions between France and Britain over the carve up of the Ottoman Empires lands following the First World War. In 1915, British Cabinet Minister Herbert Samuel proposed that Britain establish a Jewish protectorate in Palestine. The Cabinet majority opposed the plan. Curiously enough, the only other partisan of this proposal is Lloyd George, who, I need not say, does not care a damn for the Jews or their past or their future, but thinks it will be an outrage to let the Holy Places pass into the possession or under the protectorate of agnostic, atheistic France, wrote Samuel. Yet two years later, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. What had changed in Britains calculations? One clue comes from the fact that Britain issued the Balfour Declaration days before the October Revolution in Russia. Both Britain and the Zionists saw a Jewish state as a bulwark of imperialism against the spread of Bolshevism.
30
Winston Churchill, then a Tory Cabinet Minister, later explained Britains motivations in meeting Zionists expectations: a Jewish state under the protection of the British Crown ... would from every point of view be beneficial and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire. Chief among those interests was stopping Russian revolutionary Leon Trotskys schemes of a world-wide communistic state under Jewish domination. Thus, Churchill showed himself to be both an ardent Zionist and a rabid anti-Semite!
ZIonIsm: leFT and rIghT
Under the Balfour Declaration, Britain promised the Zionists both Palestine and Transjordan (modern-day Jordan). Pressure from Arab countries forced Britain to renege on the promise of Transjordan in 1922. The Zionist movements mainstream, led by David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizman, accepted Britains decision. Later, they agreed to accept British decisions to limit Jewish immigration into Palestine. This provoked a major split in the Zionist movement as a minority, led by Polish writer Vladimir Jabotinsky, protested Ben-Gurions and Weizmans realpolitik. Jabotinsky argued that Zionists should insist on capturing both sides of the Jordan and refuse to abide by any limitations the British imposed. To placate Arab opinion, the World Zionist Organization called its colony in Palestine a homeland. But Jabotinsky insisted that Zionists speak openly of their goal to build a Jewish state in Palestine. Jabotinskys program amounted to a call for revising the World Zionist Organizations strategy, thereby earning his followers the description Revisionists in the Zionist movement. Jabotinsky wrote bluntly in his 1923 essay, The Iron Wall: We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy. Jabotinsky posed the first major challenge to the
dominance in mainstream Zionism of the ideology of Labour Zionism. Labour Zionism, which traced its roots to the Eastern European Poale Zion movement in the early 1900s, dominated all of the major institutions of Zionism and of the yishuv, the Jewish settler community in Palestine. If the Bund represented socialists who caved in to nationalism, the Labour Zionists represented nationalists who used socialist-sounding rhetoric to win supporters away from genuine socialist parties. The defining institutions of Labour Zionism in pre-state Palestine were the Histadrut trade union, the General Confederation of Workers in the Land of Israel, and the kibbutzim, a network of communal settlements which some have compared to utopian socialist communities. Both of these institutions carried over into the state of Israel. Many supporters of Israel even point to them as evidence of socialism in the Zionist enterprise. Yet this is another part of the Zionist story where myth collides with reality. When it was launched, the Histadrut strictly limited its membership to Jewish workers. Only in 1960 did it it officially allow Israeli citizen Palestinian Arabs to join it. One year after its founding, it owned a holding company and a bank. The capital for these ventures came not from the Histadruts original 5,000 members, but from the international Zionist movements Jewish Agency. In other words, the Histadrut subsisted (and continues to subsist) on its role as a conduit for investment from world Zionism. The Histadrut formed the backbone of the Jewish state-in-waiting, controlling the mainstream of Zionist colonization efforts, economic production and marketing, labour employment and defense (the Haganah). One of its early leaders (and later Israeli Defense Minister) Pinhas Lavon described it this way: Our Histadrut is a general organization to the core. It is not a workers trade union although it copes perfectly well with the real needs of the worker. Kibbutzim also restricted membership to Jews only. Kibbutz land was defined as being the possession of the nation, which in pre-state and Israeli law was defined as being the property of the Jewish people. Therefore, no Arab can hope to join a kibbutz. What is more, in the pre-state period, kibbutzim served as forward military bases in the
strategic plan of Zionist settlement. The strategic consideration which had underlain the plan of Zionist settlement, decided, in large measure, the fate of many regions of the country because Haganah militia detachments attacked Palestinians from kibbutz bases. Until 1977, when self-described terrorist Menachem Begin became Israels first Revisionist prime minister, the Labour Zionists effectively represented Zionism in most peoples minds. But Labour the Zionist left and the Revisionists the Zionist right differed on means, rather than ends. Both supported an exclusively Jewish state. Like apartheid South Africas rulers, the Revisionists were willing to employ the native Palestinian population. Labour sought to replace Palestinian workers with Jewish workers. Both looked for support from imperialism. Labour Zionists oriented towards British and the U.S. imperialism. The Revisionists made overtures to the Italian and German fascism.
colonIZIng palesTIne
The Zionists tried to convince themselves that Palestine was an unoccupied land. Yet for more than 1,300 years, a Muslim Arab majority living side by side with Jews and Christians had resided in the Ottoman province. In 1882, Palestine held a population of 24,000 Jews and 500,000 Arabs. By 1922, after more than two decades of Zionist-sponsored immigration, the country had a population of nearly 760,000, 89 percent of it Palestinian Arab. Zionists purchased land and a foothold in Palestine from absentee Arab landowners in the 1920s. Later, in the 1930s, rich Palestinians sold their land to Zionists. Individual Jewish pioneers didnt buy the land. Zionist organizations like the Jewish National Fund bought land to provide a foundation for Jewish settlement in the country. Zionists drove Palestinian peasants off their land, forcing them into destitution. British authorities assured the Zionists privileged access to water and other essential resources. After establishing themselves in Palestine, the Zionists proceeded to set up a separate Jewish economy and government under the noses of British mandate authorities. They called their economic policy the conquest of Jewish land and labour, a flowery description for expelling the Palestinians
from the countrys economic life. Under the slogan, Jewish land, Jewish labour, Jewish produce, the Histadrut, the kibbutzim and the moshavim (agricultural cooperatives) proceeded to drive Palestinians out of their jobs and their livelihoods. Histadrut members acted as goon squads against Palestinians: Members of the Histadrut would picket and stand guard at Jewish orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs. Squads of activists stormed through market places, pouring kerosene on tomatoes grown in Arab gardens or smashing eggs that Jewish housewives might buy from Arab merchants. The Palestinians fought back against their dispossession. In 1936, Palestinian organizations launched a general strike against increased poverty, the Zionists and the Zionists British sponsors. The strike and subsequent armed uprisings lasted for three years before collapsing under the weight of Zionist and British repression. The Zionists role in the Palestinian Revolt clearly showed that Labour Zionism had nothing in common with genuine workers solidarity. The Histadrut organized scabbing against the strike. It worked with the British to replace Arab strikers with Jewish workers in the Port of Haifa and on Palestine railroads. The British also armed Zionist militias to crush the Palestinian uprising. With two divisions, squadrons of airplanes, the police force, the Transjordanian frontier forces, and 6,000 Jewish auxiliaries, British troops outnumbered the Palestinians ten to one. Yet it still took three years to crush the Revolt. The Revolts intensity derived from the fact that the Zionist threat to Palestine was becoming clear in the 1930s. Throughout the 1930s, the Jewish population in Palestine exploded. Thousands of Jews fleeing persecution in Central and Eastern Europe and denied admission to Britain, the U.S. and other Western countries made their way to Palestine. Between 1931 and 1945, the Jewish population in Palestine swelled from 174,000 to 608,000. While Jews accounted for only one-third of the population of Palestine on the eve of the states declaration in 1948, they were a well-armed and powerful minority. As the Jewish population increased, so did Zionist provocations against the Palestinians.
The road To al-nakBah
Without the Holocaust, the state of Israel probably wouldnt have been founded. Zionists recruited immigrants to the state of Israel from among the thousands of Holocaust survivors whose communities in Europe were destroyed. Perhaps more importantly, the Holocaust provided a convincing justification for a Jewish state. The Holocaust proved that Gentiles were inherently anti-Semitic, the Zionists argued. Jews living in Gentile societies, therefore, faced the constant danger of extermination. By the end of the war, most Jews agreed with the Zionists. What was more, the Nazis physical elimination of alternative political currents in Jewish society increased support for Zionism. While the Nazis willingly dickered with Zionist leaders throughout the 1930s and 1940s, they made sure to kill every communist, socialist or Jewish resistance fighter they could get their hands on. The war forced the British to evacuate much of their empire, including Palestine. Britain left to the United Nations the task of deciding Palestines fate. In November 1947, the UN agreed to a partition plan. The plan granted the Zionists control of 55 percent of Palestine (although they represented only one-third of the countrys population). The Palestinian majority was left with 45 percent of their own country. Jerusalem was to be an international city with equal access granted to Jews, Christians and Muslims. Zionist leaders accepted the UN Partition Plan in public. In private, they planned a military assault to seize as much Palestinian land as possible. Judah L. Magnus, president of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and supporter of a bi-national Arab and Jewish state, explained the Zionists logic in 1947: A Jewish state can only be obtained, if it ever is, through war ... You can talk to an Arab about anything, but you cannot talk to him about a Jewish state. And that is because, by definition, a Jewish state means that the Jews will govern other people, other people who are living in this Jewish state. Jabotinsky knew that long ago. He was the prophet of the Jewish state. Jabotinsky was ostracized, condemned, excommunicated. But now we see that the entire Zionist movement has adopted his point of view... As Magnus predicted, the Zionist right and left united to hijack the country. They used terror,
32
psychological warfare and massacres to instill fear among Palestinians. In the most well-known massacre, the Revisionist Irgun and the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel militias whose chief leaders were future Israeli prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir murdered the entire Palestinian village of Dir Yassin. The commandos lined men, women and children up against walls and shot them, according to a Red Cross description of the massacre. After Dir Yassin, Zionists used the threat of massacre to compel Palestinians to flee their homes, including those in cities like Haifa and Jaffa. Israeli military commander and future Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin oversaw the expulsion of the Palestinian population of Lydda. He described the events: Yigal Allon asked Ben-Gurion what was to be done with the civilian population. Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture of drive them out. Driving out is a term with a harsh ring. Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of Lydda did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the ten or fifteen miles to the point where they met up with the Arab Legion. For years, Zionist history asserted a number of facts about the 1948 war: that little Israel faced overwhelming Arab firepower; that Palestinian leaders encouraged Palestinians to leave the country; that there was no Zionist plan to drive the Palestinians out; that Palestinians rejected partition and started the war. Yet recent historical research based on formerly top secret Israel Defense Force documents prove that all of these assertions are lies. When the war ended, the Zionists held more than 77 percent of Palestine, including 95 percent of all the good agricultural land in the country. The state of Israel stole 80 percent of privately owned
Palestinian land. More than 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes, with Jews moving into them. Palestinian society was destroyed. For this reason, the Palestinians refer to 1948 as alNakbah (the catastrophe). In 1949, a kibbutz welcomed members of the socialist Hashomer Hatzair from the U.S. and Canada to colonize a Palestinian village seized in 1948. One of the kibbutzs first acts was razing the villages mosque. A Hashomer member wrote in his/her diary: It had to be done. It would have been useless to preserve this symbol of a population which showed itself to be, when one views the thing factually and unsentimentally, our hardened enemies whom we have no intention of permitting to return. Its now a mass of ruins, and yet most of us agree its better this way. The hovels, the filth, the medieval atmosphere its gone now for the most part. Bring on the bulldozers and lets plant trees. On a foundation of war and murder, the Israeli state was built. Zionism gained its longstanding aim a Jewish state. But as the 100-year history of political Zionism and the 50-year history of the state of Israel shows, this is nothing to celebrate. Members of the Israeli Socialist Organization, a revolutionary socialist organization, said it best in 1972: Zionism promised national awakening and fraternal solidarity; it has produced a society of increasing inequality and of racist discrimination and cultural oppression. Zionism promised independence; it has produced a society in which the Prime Minister must periodically affirm to the people that the existence of the nation depends on the delivery of fifty or a hundred Phantom jets from the United States. ... Zionism promised physical security to the Jews; Israel is the most dangerous place on earth today for a Jew, and it will remain so as long as IsraeliJewish society retains its colonial character and its function as an instrument of imperialism.
33
The histadrut and Settler-Colonialism: The early Years

By Katherine Nastovksi
In February 2007, Palestinian unions issued a joint statement calling for the boycott not only of the Israeli State but of the Histadrut, citing its long history of support for the occupation, racist policies against Palestinian workers, and silence in the face of Israels crimes against the Palestinian people.This builds on the 2005 call from Palestinian civil society for an International campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
W haT Is The hIsTadruT?
The Histadrut, founded in 1920 by the major Zionist parties in Palestine was from its inception a nationalist organization with a purpose of being a vehicle for the colonization of Palestine. The Histadrut did not come together as a federation of unions but as a settlement organization, with priority to national goals over class solidarity. The organization was made up of three primary sections: enterprises, services and unions. It was the owner of an economic empire that included the largest bank, construction companies, and industries. It also operated like a state in its function as an employment agency for settlers, as a provider of health care and pension funds and its control over the Hagana, which would later become the Israeli Defence Forces. And lastly, it served as a central organization that oversaw and largely led union activity. In a short time the Histadrut became the largest employer in the country, controlling 25 percent of the economy by 1948. From 1948 until the early 1980s the Histadrut was a key player in a corporatist system and very closely tied to the Israeli state and business. After the 1980s its role has diminished as its membership fell from 79 percent in 1981 to 49% in 1996 in 2000 it declined to 45 percent as the Histadrut faced restructuring that meant the privatization of many of its companies and the dismantling of its services, like the health program. It remains one of the largest employers in Israel next to the Israeli state itself.
The Histadrut was an exclusively Jewish organization until 1959 when it began to admit Palestinian members. Palestinians were then only allowed to vote in union elections in 1965. This applies only for Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Those without Israeli citizenship such as Palestinians from the occupied territories and migrant workers from Thailand and elsewhere are still barred from membership.
W hy The hIsTadruT Is noT FundamenTally a Workers or WorkIng class organIZaTIon

Relation to capital and capitalism The Histadrut, in contrast to the ideological claims of some of its founding leaders, was from its inception a friend of capital and a vehicle for capitalist development in the region. It was able to establish companies and provide services only with the help of private capital through the World Zionist Organization (WZO). Its very structure was based on and only made possible through this relationship with private capital. From its founding, the Histadrut embodied and operated on the ideal of constructivism, which was a strategy of collecting funds to finance the organizing and settling of significant numbers of immigrant workers. As a dependent on the funds of private capital and as an investor and entrepreneur itself, the Histadrut never posed a threat to capitalist development in the region and remains one of the largest employers in Israel today.
34
Harmony with the boss: when your union rep is your employer (or buddies with your employer) The Histadruts structure revealed the abandonment of the principles of class solidarity and class struggle. Its membership was not based on class, or sector or workplace but on nationality irrespective of class. The organizations structure meant that workers appealed to an organization of which their employer was also a member. The highest governing body in the Histadrut makes ultimate decisions on strikes and job actions at the same time as they serve as the owners of many of companies that workers were employed in. Some might refer to this type of relationship as akin to that of company unions, where employers set up unions to restrain workers and prevent them from organizing independently. An early Secretary-General of Hevrat Ovdim (the enterprises section of the Histadrut) captures the Histadrut labour-management philosophy
Management sees the workers viewpoint much, much better, and like the workers, we absorb this viewpoint without even concentrating on it. The result? Strikes in our enterprises are few and far between. Labor and management exist in much greater harmony. The philosophy behind the trade unions section of the Histadrut was the idea of conquest of labour and not of class struggle which was seen as detrimental to the Zionist project on the land. This meant restraint of workers demands and of workers control. Israeli Historian Michael Shalev argues that the Histadrut leadership exerted considerable efforts to restrain workers pursuit of their immediate interests in the context of the employment relation. This was done via centralized decision making by the Histadrut leadership, control over the functioning of workers councils, expulsion of militants, and control over the authorization of strike or other job actions that was sometimes enforced by open or implicit threats of cutting off medical services to wildcatters. These kinds of tactics in restraining workers militancy showed the strength of the Histadruts control over Jewish workers lives in the pre-1948 context. The very nature of the Histadrut created a great dependence by workers on the organization as it was the employment agency, health insurance and
pension provider of the settler community in Palestine. There were challenges to this structure and the integration of a workers organization with its employer in the early years of the Histadrut mostly by communist parties. These parties were either expelled or marginalized by the end of the 1920s when the Histadruts role as a vehicle for Zionist was fully consolidated in the merger of the two main Zionist parties into MAPAI (later to become the labour party) who maintained control over the Histadrut from then onward. Histadrut policy was from that point often set in MAPAI party forums and later through corporatist structures dominated by members of the Israeli leadership.
Histadrut in action: securing apartheid The railway workers forget that the mission of the Hebrew workers who are part of the movement for settling Palestine, is not to be bothered by mutual assistance to Arab workers, but to assist in the fortification of the Zionist project on the land
This quote by early Histadrut leader David Hachoen captures the racism that underlies the foundation of the organization. It was based on an explicit rejection of class solidarity and a call for the strengthening of the colonial project. In the 1920s there was a struggle within the Histadrut over the nature of struggle, class struggle or national struggle as embodied in the idea of the conquest of labour? The demand for class solidarity and class struggle was brought to the Histadrut most forcefully by the railway workers in the early 1920s who sought the inclusion of Palestinian workers into the Histadrut. The Histadrut governing committee, led by David Ben-Gurion responded to the railway workers by arguing that Palestinians would have to form their own separate organizations that the Histadrut would then work alongside. The railway workers rejected this proposal and declared itself an International union in 1924 and began to organize to change the nature of the Histadruts structure, challenging not only its racism toward Palestinians but also its cross-class nature calling for having an independent trade union organization. This attempt at changing the nature of the Histadrut was defeated at the Histadruts third congress in 1927. The rejection of class solidarity with
Palestinian workers was to become fully consolidated in the campaign for Hebrew Labor that began with pickets displacing Palestinian workers that same year. The campaign for Hebrew Labor was a means of legitimizing and furthering the exclusionary aims the Histadrut and a war of position for the Zionist project more generally. These pickets took place in the late twenties and early to mid-thirties and were focused on displacing Palestinian workers who worked on groves in Zionist settler colonies. These pickets were to mark a shift from the early Histadrut years where there was, at least rhetorically, a commitment to some debate around solidarity with Palestinian workers. These pickets were sporadic and often degenerated into attacks on Palestinian workers, grove owners and included the destruction of property and led on a number of occasions to intervention of British forces. Historian Steven A. Glazer argues that this aggressive campaign for economic segregation, was one prong of an overall strategy of the political and economic
entrenchment of the Yishuv and its efforts at territorial segregation. The picket campaigns, organized and authorized at the highest levels of the Histadrut are key examples of the Histadruts function as an engineer of apartheid in Palestine and of how the Histadruts union arm was used to secure nationalist ends. This campaign and labour strategy was very directly inspired by the model of South African apartheid. In an essay in 1927, Hayyim Arlosoroff, a co-founder of Hapoel Hatzair which was a leading party in the Histadrut in the 1920s, argued that South Africas conditions most closely resembled those confronted by Jewish workers in Palestine. He argued that joint organization would never overcome the dynamics of the capitalist labor market therefore with the competition from low wage Palestinian workers the only solution was to devote its resources and energies to developing a separate high-wage, highproductivity, and exclusively Jewish economic sector, which would coexist with an unproductive and low-wage Arab sector.
Hebron, January 2007. Once a jewellery market, this street has been closed by the Israeli occupying forces for six years. Photo: ela g
36
15 February 2007 Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA) Statement
CAIA welcomes call from Palestinian trade unionists to boycott Israel and the Histadrut
on 11 February, 2007, a historic declaration came
from Palestine, signed by all Palestinian trade unions, vocational and professional unions. the declaration expresses complete support for the global campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. It calls upon international trade union federations, the ILO and other worker organizations to boycott and divest from Israel - and thanks those across the world who have already heeded this call. Most significantly, the Palestinian declaration calls on all trade unionists and international union federations to boycott the Histadrut, the Israeli trade union federation, in order to pressure it to guarantee rights for our workers and to pressure the government to end the occupation and to recognize the full rights of the Palestinian people. In the wake of the March 2006 CUPE Ontario resolution, individuals in the Canadian labour movement attempted to use ties with the Histadrut as grounds for condemning the CUPE Ontario decision. Attempts were made from some quarters to claim that the Palestinian General Federation of
Trade Unions (PGFTU) did not support boycott, divestment and sanctions. These claims have now been demonstrated to be unfounded. CUPE Ontario has clearly worked consistently within basic principles of international solidarity expressed in the BDS campaign and deserves the support of all Canadian trade unions. The Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA) welcomes this call from Palestinian unions and pledges to do its utmost to support and strengthen the growing movement across the world to isolate Israel in the manner of South African apartheid. Palestinian unions have set up a picket line and called on workers across the world not to cross. It is time for Canadian labour movement activists to take up this call and show real support for their fellow workers in Palestine. The original copy of the declaration, the English translation (reprinted below), and a report from the press conference announcing the call in Palestine is available at: http://www.stopthewall.org/boycott/bds/ cupe.shtml
S tatement
in
O ccaSiOn
Of the
W OrkerS B OycOtt c all
today, 11th of February 2007, we, the Palestinian labour federations, vocational and professional trade unions, and
the grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign, have convened a press conference to announce a call for solidarity with our workers and the Palestinian people endorsed by the General Union of Palestinian Workers, Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, the Coalition of Independent Democratic Trade Unions and other professional unions. This call addresses the Arab and International Trade Unions and, in particular, the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions, the Arab League, the Arab Labour Organization, the International Labour Organization, the International Trade Union Confederation, the Organization of African Trade Union Unity, the Palestinian people and the international community. We call upon all the above to:
Boycott and divest from Israel Work towards sanctions upon Israel
Until Israel stops its crimes against our people and implements international law safeguarding human rights for all. This call from the Palestinian workers movement is part of our struggle against the Occupation and for Freedom, Self-determination, the Right of Return, Social Justice and a Palestinian independent state with its capital as Jerusalem and to end the racism against our people inside the Green Line.
continued ...
37
S tatement
Continued
in
O ccaSiOn
Of the
W OrkerS B OycOtt c all
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and next year will mark 60 years from the Nakba. In the meanwhile, the Palestinian people still yearn for their right to live free in their homeland, and 6.8 million refugees scattered all over the world strive for their right (as enshrined in international law, including UN resolutions) to return to their homes, villages and cities. It is imperative to recognize that since its inception, the Histadrut has supported the Occupation and enacted racist policies against our workers, denying them their rights. It has kept silent in front of Israels crimes against our people throughout the decades of occupation. We are thus asking the international trade unions to boycott the Histadrut to pressure it to guarantee rights for our workers and to pressure the government to end the occupation and to recognize the full rights of the Palestinian people. Since July 2002, the Occupation is creating a new reality on the ground via construction of the Apartheid Wall. It turns the West Bank into ghettos, escalates the confiscation and isolation of our lands and water and increases racist policies against our people, eventually destroying the dream of a Palestinian state. On top of this, the Occupation continues with the policies of targeted assassinations, home demolitions, expulsion of non-Jews from Jerusalem and destruction of homes and historical monuments there, attacks on holy sites, and destroying our industries and entire economy then exploiting our workers, starving our people in order to force the Occupations projects upon us so that we will eventually surrender. Today, we initiate as the Palestinian Labour Movement a Workers Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) to build upon the United Palestinian Call for BDS against Israel to the International Community. This call has been signed by more than 170 Palestinian organizations and political parties from the West Bank, Gaza and the Diaspora. We thank and express our gratitude to the movements, unions and organizations all over the world that in the last two years have taken up the call for boycott and launched campaigns in their countries. They challenged the Zionist lobby and have shown steadfastness in the face of attacks instigated against them. We thus ask the international trade unions to grant their support to these initiatives in their countries, to organize their own boycott campaigns and to coordinate international efforts to effectively implement boycotts, divestment and sanctions in order to: 1. Stop the crimes committed against our rights, above all occupation and the expulsion of our people; 2. Tear down the wall of silence built up by the international community in order to finally shun the crimes of the Occupation; 3. Keep the conscience of the world alive and nurture respect for international human rights law while promoting its implementation; 4. Reach a just and comprehensive solution for the Palestinian cause. Greetings to the Liberation Struggle of our Workers. Greetings to those around the World Standing in Solidarity and Struggling for the Palestinian Cause. Eternal Glory to Martyrs for Freedom Everywhere. Signatories General Union of Palestinian workers: Haidar Ibrahim (General Secretary) Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions: Amneh Rimawi / for: Shaher Saad (Steering committee) Coalition of Independent Democratic Trade Unions: Muhammad al Arouri (Coordinator) General Union of Palestine Labor Vocational Associations: Hassan Sharake (General Secretary) Palestinian Farmers Union: Adel Abu Nemeh (General Secretary)
38
The following interview is abridged from an interview conducted by Stefan Christoff from Tadamon! Montreal with Daoud Hammoudi, from The Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (stopthewall.org). It was published in The Electronic Intifada, 10 March 2008 and was first produced for the Fighting FTAs Project (fightingftas.org).
The economics of Apartheid
Stefan Christoff: Can you first speak about the impact on the Palestinian economy of the apartheid wall being constructed in the West Bank, and can you describe the current status of the walls construction? Daoud Hamoudi: In 2002 the Israeli government started building a wall in the occupied West Bank. Its a 700-kilometer-long wall that Israel claims is a security wall to separate the Palestinians from Israel. However, the path of the wall splits Palestinian lands, creating small ghettos, closed ghettos with a limited number of exit and entry points that are controlled by Israeli military checkpoints. Israels wall has had many severe impacts on Palestinians, including major economic impacts. Each kilometer of Israels wall costs an estimated $2.5 million at minimum, while there is a great deal of infrastructure, high-tech military equipment that additionally lines the wall, costing an estimated $400 million. It has been very, very expensive for Israel to build this wall. After completion, the wall will include an estimated 35 checkpoints that will cost additional millions. Given this economic reality, Israel launched a parallel economic plan to coincide with the walls construction, a plan to control the Palestinian economy in order to fund the walls construction. Israels parallel economic plan started in 2005, approved by both the US government and the EU; now Israel is attempting to force this economic plan on Palestinian society. SC: I understand you are documenting an economic plan put forward by Israel, to compensate for hundredsLabour for PaLestine
of-millions of dollars through siphoning money from the Palestinian economy. Can you explain in specifics how this is happening? DH: For example, there was a proposal from the World Bank in 2005, to build between nine and twelve industrial zones throughout the West Bank. Each Palestinian ghetto will have two or three industrial zones to which Israeli factories will be moved. Palestinians will become the cheap labor force for Israeli industry. Also, these industrial zones will be built along the border, so they will not be part of Israel or Palestine and the labor force will not be officially working in either Israel or Palestine. Palestinians will be forced to work in areas where Palestinian [and] Israeli labor laws dont apply. In this context, if a Palestinian worker has a problem with an Israeli factory owner, the worker cant use the Israeli court system or Palestinian regulation to address the labor issue. Also within this proposal, the announced salary for Palestinian workers within the industrial zones will be $300 US a month, a fraction of the minimum for Israeli workers inside Israel. For the first time, Israeli industry or factory owners are openly talking about competing with Asian productions within European and North American markets. Another example is a project funded by the Japanese government, an agro-industrial zone, built on Palestinian land in the West Bank that today has become a closed Israeli military zone, in which the agro-industrial areas will be launched, based on the same conditions for Palestinian workers proposed in the industrial zones.
SC: Can you expand on the examples that you put forward, both the agro-industrial zone and the industrial zone project in the West Bank? Could you expand on the economic implications for the Palestinian people and Palestinian economy? DH: To build any state you need to have an independent economy, which in turn fuels national development. Today, if the West Bank became free from the Israeli economy, this break would have a major negative impact on the Israeli economy, as the Palestinian territories are the second largest market for Israel after the US. For example, Israeli gas companies generate around 40 percent of their income from the West Bank and Gaza markets alone. Today, Israel is attempting to impose conditions on any future Palestinian state, [over] which Israel will continue to control economic trade, [the] national economy, the borders, all to secure economic benefits for Israel from any future Palestinian state. A group of economic agreements ... under negotiation since 2005 include the establishment of the industrial zones. [The] issue behind this project is the fact that, internationally speaking, Israels labor force maintains extremely high standards in relation to international wage standards. Israel cant compete with industrial production costs in South Asia, Latin America or China, including clothing, food and other production. Israel is attempting to build the national economy through these industrial zones, through moving Israeli factories into these areas, then bringing in cheap Palestinian labor to work in slavery-like conditions at the lowest wages possible, in order to allow Israeli industry to compete in the world market. Now these economic projects are promoted as peace-building projects internationally. These industrial zones will be placed along the border, so they will not be considered either Israeli or Palestinian. However, the companies operating within the zones will be Israeli companies or multi-national corporations, like Turkish or US-based companies. Israelis will own the factories [and] also will supervise the Palestinian workers. Israel will additionally control the export of products created within the industrial zones. Estimates project that there will be 40,000 Palestinian workers within the industrial zones.
40
Already land has been confiscated in different Palestinian districts in the West Bank to build these industrial zones, which will be funded initially by different governments internationally. To explain, one in the north will be funded by the German government, one in the northwest of the West Bank will be funded by [the US development agency] USAID, one in the south will include infrastructure funded by the World Bank and Turkish government and finally one in the eastern West Bank will be funded by the Japanese and US governments. Supporters of this industrial zone project hope that eventually half-a-million Palestinian workers will be working in these industrial areas. Again its important to remember that the Palestinian workers will not be working in either Israel or a potential Palestinian state, so no labor laws can be implemented on these industrial or agro-industrial zones. Israelis will maintain control [over] the exports over these industrial zones, as all the supervisors will be Israeli, so Israel will have total economic control over the zones. SC: Based on your reading of the proposal to establish these industrial zones, can you describe the potential conditions for thousands of Palestinian workers who would fill this labor vacuum for the industrial zones that you have described? DH: First, its important to recognize that to enter these industrial zones you will need a permit from Israeli authorities; if at any point in your history you were considered an activist against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, you will never receive the permit to enter and work at the factories in the industrial zones. So these industrial areas will remain under strict Israeli control. Now looking at Gaza, the area has been a ghetto since 1994, as a wall has been surrounding Gaza since that time. Already two industrial zones have been built where thousands of Palestinians worked. As the intifada started in 2000, Israel simply started closing the entrance to the factories, collectively punishing Palestinian workers. Finally in 2004 Israel closed the industrial zones in Gaza. Also its important to note that the Israeli permits to enter the zones are considered tourist visas,
not working visas. Now if a Palestinian worker wanted to travel to work in Canada, for example, I would need a work visa not a tourist visa. In Canada, if I worked while on a tourist visa I would be considered an illegal worker -- in the legal sense, a worker without any rights. Now within these industrial zones, they are on the border areas, so under Israeli law a Palestinian working on a tourist visa within the zones would be considered an illegal worker. So in these conditions, the Palestinian workers are unable to create a union. If a conflict or dispute happens ... between the Palestinian workers and the Israeli factory owners, the Palestinian workers would have no recourse within either the Palestinian or Israeli legal system. No labor rights would exist, no health insurance for workers. If a Palestinian worker becomes sick, or is injured within one of these factories, the Palestinian would simply be thrown out of the industrial zone without compensation or anything. At this time, these industrial zones are being promoted as peace-building projects, which Israel argues the international community should support. Each industrial or agro-industrial zone will be funded by international governments or international funding agencies, such as USAID. In promoting these industrial zones as peacebuilding projects, Israel is attempting to ensure support from the European Union and other states around the world. Through the free-trade agreements that Israeli maintains internationally with different countries in Europe [and] Canada, a market exists for the goods that would be produced within these industrial zones by Palestinian workers. SC: Can you talk about the role of the Palestinian Authority in the creation of these industrial zones? What has been the position of the PA? DH: [When] the Oslo Agreement was signed and the Paris Protocol, an economic agreement that was signed between the Israelis and the PA, Palestinian politicians thought that they could really benefit from these projects. So throughout the early 1990s the PA promoted such projects internationally, including the two industrial zones that were built around Gaza. In the West Bank, no industrial projects were built during the Oslo period in the end.
Once the intifada started and the PA was persuaded [by] the grassroots [organizations] ... that Israel was offering the Palestinians nothing, most of these industrial projects were stopped, while a movement against economic cooperation with Israeli spread throughout the Palestinian territories, even up to the highest levels of the PA. This movement against economic cooperation with Israel also promoted the idea of developing economic alternatives to cooperation with Israel for the Palestinians. This movement continues. In 2004 Israelis began seeking independent economic partners within Palestinian society, attempting to negotiate direct agreements with different Palestinian businesspeople. Israel targeted the most important 50 Palestinian businesspeople, attempting to persuade these Palestinians to co-launch these industrial zones directly with Israel and without the approval of the Palestinian Authority. [The] first step was an Israeli military order to confiscate the land from Palestine for the industrial zones, then Israel surrounded this territory by the wall and also by checkpoints, then they pressured Palestinians to buy these confiscated lands. The Palestinian Authority managed to block this project in cooperation with grassroots organizations and civil society organizations, including ours, which was active in this effort. Palestinians managed to block the project [for Israelis] to sign direct deals with Palestinian businesspeople. In 2005 the World Bank managed to re-open debate on the industrial project, presenting through research the zones as the only solution for the Palestinian economy. Since this time Israel and the World Bank managed to collect funding for these projects, mainly from the IMF [International Monetary Fund], USAID, the US government, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, the Turkish government and the German government. At the recent summit in Annapolis in the US, these industrial zone projects were jointly approved by the PA and Israeli officials, at which time they announced that they will attempt to finalize these projects by the end of 2008. Now in Palestine, through civil society networks, we are trying to raise the level of pressure on the PA to stop all Palestinian cooperation in these industrial zone projects, for
the PA to cancel the approval they made at Annapolis. SC: Can you speak about the grassroots reaction to the PA agreement to participate in the establishment of industrial zones in collaboration with Israel? On a grassroots level, what are people in Palestine saying about these projects? DH: [The] launching of a grassroots campaign took different dimensions; a key dimension is rooted in our appeal for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, which is led by different organizations world-wide. Also, there have been many meetings between activists in Palestine and different officials within the PA. Also, we are pushing to include an anti-Israel-cooperation position within the mandate for Palestinian trade unions for the upcoming five years. At this point many politicians in Palestine have been persuaded to work against the creation of these industrial zones within the framework of the PA. Also at [the] grassroots level, we have been organizing demonstrations and events next to the locations for the industrial zones and outside of PA buildings in the West Bank, led by the people with land confiscated by Israel in order to begin establishing these industrial zones. Many efforts are taking place to stop these industrial zone projects. SC: Lets talk about the way that economics is used throughout the Middle East to push normalization with Israel. Clearly, the issue of economic and political normalization with Israel is contested throughout the region. Currently a number of trade agreements are being negotiated between the US and different countries in the Middle East, agreements that include points of economic normalization with Israel, an issue that gained a great deal of attention from Jordan to Bahrain. Can you talk about the regional context? DH: An important point concerning recent history on this issue was a presentation made by US President [George W.] Bush at a conference at Columbia University in which Bush stated that the USs goal was to have a free trade agreement between the Middle East and the US. Also within this address, Bush stated that the agreement would be about establishing US political control within the Middle East, linking the trade agreements to the US war
42
on terror. Also Bush stated clearly that this trade strategy involved bring[ing] Israel into the Middle East as a fully recognized country, as a Jewish country living next to its neighbors in peace. So trade agreements were presented as the path for the US push for normalization with Israel. In this same period, Robert Zoellick traveled to the Middle East in [his] capacity [as] US Trade Representative. In a talk, Zoellick stated clearly that the goal for this agreement was to have Israel recognized in the region, as part of the effort to combat the Arab boycott of Israel. As the US started negotiating these agreements, the first countries that they targeted were the smallest or weakest countries in the Middle East. In an attempt to create an opening in the Arab boycott against Israel, the US targeted Jordan, Bahrain [and] Morocco. At the same time, US Congress representatives announced that the US would peruse a free trade agreement with Saudi Arabia only if the monarchy officially recognized Israel. In signing these agreements, for example with Jordan, the US now allows exports in to the US without taxes if the product included a minimum of ten percent Israeli material. SC: Can you discuss the current situation in Palestine in terms of the economic context of Israels occupation? DH: If you look back to history, its clear that many colonial projects were started for economic reasons and came to an end when the price of occupation became higher than the profits gained from the occupation or colonization project. For example, in Algeria, the French greatly benefited from Algerian agricultural production, especially grapes which were used in the French wine production. British colonization in India was greatly connected to the spice trade and to cotton production. Also, British colonization in Egypt was connected to cotton production. Each example of colonization in history was connected to economics, ending when the human and financial price became higher than the profit the colonizers could gain by continuing colonial policies. Today, Israels occupation controls all of Palestines resources, [including] water resources [and] tourist resources, as Jerusalem and the West Bank are rich in Muslim, Jewish and Christian tourist
sites. At the time that Israels occupation began, a central goal was to control the economic resources of Palestine. However, today the price of this occupation is becoming higher and higher. In examining the current economic situation facing Israel today its clear that the occupation will collapse unless Israel creates new ways to benefit from the occupation. In the face of this crisis arrives the industrial zone projects or the free trade agreements as a solution. Robert Zoellick, the US Trade Representative, explained it best at the Doha meetings of the World Trade Organization in 2001, [by] saying that the US is pushing free trade agreements throughout the global south in order to force the US political agenda, which translates in the Middle East to accepting Israels occupation or accepting the US
occupation of Iraq. People throughout the Middle East are attempting to build a movement against the economic side of the war. However, unfortunately, the majority of the people in the region live under dictatorships, which makes it extremely difficult to create the space to build a movement against these economic policies. Major demonstrations against these US-driven trade agreements have taken place. However, these demonstrations face serious repression. Many social activists who have been involved in fighting US trade policies have been arrested, detained or interrogated. Despite this, our movement continues: a movement against US trade policies throughout the Middle East.
A sign hanging adjacent to the Sawahre Checkpoint announcing the confiscation of Palestinian land for the construction of an Israeli road to surround Jerusalem. 16 January 2008. Photographer: Neta Efroni www.machsomwatch.org/
43
SECTION THREE
Canada, Colonialism and Israeli Apartheid

the standard history of canada obscures the historical genocide and continued marginalization and colonization that takes place against indigenous peoples. The history of colonialization, confrontations with white-settler societies, and displacement provides a common linkage between First Nations in Canada and Palestinians. They are both struggling for traditional lands, rights of self-determination and formation of independent political institutions. These common experiences and political struggles have fostered important linkages of solidarity between activists for Palestinian rights and many First Nations communities in Canada.These historical legacies, and indeed the present inequities internal to the Canadian state, continue to frame Canadian government approaches to foreign policy and the Middle East. Zainab Amadahy looks at the real record of Canadian colonialism, and shows how the land and resources of First Nations people have been subsidizing the Canadian economy for generations. The second article in this section, by Greg Albo, looks at the latest turn in Canadian foreign policy and its role in the US-led reordering of the global economy. This shift has been fully backed by the Canadian media. Dan Freeman-Malloy looks at how the Canadian media has continued to whitewash and mystify the real record of Israeli apartheid and its treatment of the Palestinian population. The concluding article looks at the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA) and how this agreement helps to sustain the economy of Israeli apartheid.
CAIA Re-affirms Solidarity as Canadian Government Escalates Attacks on Indigenous People

19th September 2007. The Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA) affirms its unequivocal solidarity and support to the struggle of indigenous people for sovereignty, dignity and selfdetermination across North America (Turtle Island). We strongly reiterate this support given the climate of repression and escalating attacks by the Canadian government on the indigenous population of this country. Last week, the Canadian government once again demonstrated its utter contempt for indigenous people when it voted against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. CAIA is not at all surprised by this vote given the history of Canadian colonialism. The stark reality of this colonialism - and the fact that the profits of transnational corporations largely depend upon the continued theft and dispossession of indigenous resources - was made clear by those who joined the Canadian government in this vote: Australia, the US, and New Zealand. By their decision to oppose the UN Resolution, these governments have merely confirmed the ongoing reality of colonialism. Furthermore, this vote comes at a time of escalating attacks against those struggling to defend their lands. In Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory at the Bay of Quinte, a scant 17,000 acres remain of the original 92,700 acres of Mohawk land. For 200 years, the Canadian government has facilitated the theft of these 70,000 acres of land by settlers, private land developers, and companies such as CN Rail. In the fall of 2006, Tyendinaga Mohawks renewed efforts to regain part of their land, the Culbertson Tract, a 923-acre piece of land that had been stolen in 1832. Despite the fact that even the Canadian government acknowledged that the Culbertson Tract was Mohawk land in 2003, private developers have continued to expand their use of the land. In March 2007, members of the Tyendinaga community reclaimed a gravel quarry operated by Thurlow Aggregates, rightly noting that it was impossible to negotiate over the land when 10,000 truckloads were being carted away each year. Actions around the reclamation of the quarry, and others in solidarity with the ongoing struggle by Six Nations people near Caledonia, have led to the arrest of Tyendinaga Mohawk and spokesperson, Shawn Brant, and a lawsuit against members of the Tyendinaga community. The repression against Tyendinaga Mohawks comes in the context of the ongoing subjugation of native people. We note that 1 in 3 indigenous people are living in poverty - more than double the non-native rate. The percentage of First Nations people in Canadian prisons has increased by more than 20% over the last 10 years and the incarceration rate is almost nine times that of non-native people. Three quarters of native reserves have water supplies that are considered at risk. And the native youth suicide rate is more than 5 times that of the non-native population. This small snapshot of indigenous life indicates that any pretension of Canada as a fair, tolerant or just society is simply a lie designed to hide the odious reality of colonial dispossession. CAIA extends its full support to all indigenous people in their struggle on this land. As a Palestinian solidarity organization, we recognize and support indigenous sovereignty, and see the direct parallels between the Palestinian struggle and that of indigenous people on Turtle Island.The illegal occupation of land, forced dispossession, restrictions of movement, military force and the systematic destruction of culture and livelihood are familiar colonial strategies that Palestinians have endured for decades. We are absolutely confident that the indigenous people of this country will win justice, as shall the people of Palestine.
SECTION THREE: Canada, Colonialism
and Israeli Apartheid
47
Canadas Colonial Present

by Zainab Amadahy
irst Nations people are the original inhabitants/caretakers of the land we refer to as Turtle Island, which includes all of North America. Our languages, cultures and very identity are intimately connected to/rooted in this land. To separate us from the land either ideologically or physically is an act of genocide. The very concepts of Canada, Mexico and the US (not to mention every so-called nation in the Americas) are premised on this genocide and the concurrent seizure of land and the resources within the land. The standard of living we enjoy in North America (some of us more than others) is founded on genocide, stolen land, stolen resources and stolen African and indigenous people who were enslaved (stolen labour). These original thefts were committed in the past but their legacy impacts us all in the present. This does not mean that indigenous people dont recognize other forms of oppression on which capitalism depends. We want and need to make alliances. But we need allies who recognize and take responsibility for their history as settlers on this land (albeit we do not generalize about the settler experience and settler power in Canadian society; we know that not all settlers enjoy the stolen wealth of this land equally.) We need allies who wrestle with the implications of being a settler on anothers land while they wrestle with the fact that settlers are not equally empowered due, in large part, to Canadas historic and current role in displacing people globally.
Though the relationship between First Nations and European settlers has a longer history, we can only briefly review some of that here in an effort to demonstrate how the colonial past has shaped our colonial present.
The IndIan acT
In 1876 Canada passed the Indian Act which imposed the band council system of government on the indigenous people of Turtle Island (North America). Among other things, this law: Deposed already existing leadership to establish band councils and the areas over which they had jurisdiction. The Indian Act was passed without consultation with any indigenous leader, usurped the treaty process (nation to nation agreements) and made First Nations (FN) governments null and void, despite the fact that these governments had served our ancestors for millennia before Europeans arrived on Turtle Island. This is akin to the US government passing a law that disbanded the current Canadian government, determined what type of government Canada must have and designated the limitations of its power. Made First Nations Communities economically dependent on Ottawa. The federal government controls the only sources of revenue for social programs, economic development projects or job creation in FN communities. Ottawa determines through a variety of legal and financing mechanisms what band councils can and cannot do for
Zainab Amadahy is a writer, activist, community worker and an active member of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid. Her achievements include contributing to the anthology, Strong Womens Stories: Native Vision & Community Activism, co-edited by Bonita Lawrence and Kim Anderson (2004, Sumach Press) as well as authoring Moons of Palmares (1998, Sister Vision Press). Zainab is a founding member of the Coalition in Support of Indigenous Sovereignty, is a Board member of the Association of Native Development in the Performing & Visual arts and is the Executive Director of Community Arts Ontario.
48
their communities. Even the process of pursuing a land claim is legislated by Ottawa, funded (or not) by Ottawa and decided ultimately in Canadian courts. Land usage on FN territories is determined by Ottawa. There are many examples in history when the federal government leased or sold First Nations lands or resources and consequently reaped huge profits that did not accrue to the community. Clearly, the poverty that exists in First Nations communities is, and always has been, by Ottawas design. Blatantly discriminated against women by recognizing Native descent through the male line so that First Nations citizenship rights for women were recognized only through their fathers lineage and husbands status, and by prohibiting them from voting or running for office in band elections. This was in complete contradiction to traditional First Nations practices, in which descent for many communities was reckoned along the female line, and where women had significant authorities in political, economic and social life. While there were many nations and many practices, it is safe to generalize and say that women held positions of leadership directly and/or appointed male leaders and held them accountable. This was completely overturned by the Indian Act. Although women now have the right to vote and run for band office, almost a century of being excluded from political, economic and social decision-making has left First Nations women on and off reserve in very vulnerable situations. Women are among the poorest in First Nations communities. They have been targeted through various amendments to the Indian Act and thousands were stripped of their status along with their homes, benefits and any treaty rights they may have had. The hundreds of women who are missing from our communities, dead and murdered, is a direct result of a deliberate and calculated attack on the rights and authorities of First Nations women by the Canadian government. Determined who could call themselves an Indian and live in First Nations communities. The Indian Act established an Indian registry and with subsequent amendments there has emerged a complex set of legal categories (status and non-status Indians, Treaty Indians, Bill C-31 Indians, etc.)
designed to divide and disempower First Nations families and communities. Non-status Indians are those who are not recognized by Ottawa as First Nations. They cannot live in their communities, do not enjoy benefits or treaty rights and are not permitted to participate in band council elections. Again, this is akin to the US determining who could be a Canadian and who could not, as well as who could live here and vote in Canadian elections. Initially through the use of Indian agents with sweeping powers and more recently through purse strings, Ottawa has controlled band councils, band chiefs and the Assembly of First Nations. Whether this current control is perceived of as friendly or hostile is irrelevant and sidesteps the basic assumption that First Nations people are children who cannot manage their own affairs. To recognize that some band councils, their chiefs and police are sincerely interested in serving their communities while others are corrupt may be true but fails to recognize that the band council system is itself inherently corrupt, paternalistic and racist.
esTaBlIshmenT oF reserves In canada
To provide more insight into some aspects of Canadas colonial foundations, the following is excerpted from a presentation I made on the Establishment of Reserves in Canada (delivered on February 3, 2006 during Anti-Apartheid Week at the University of Toronto, organized by the Arab Students Collective and edited and updated on January 17, 2007) It is important to address the establishment of reserves in the context of the overall genocide project on Turtle Island. Today we estimate that about half of all status Indians in Canada live off reserve. So status Indians are people who are actually registered and recognized by the federal government as Indians under the Indian Act. When you include non status Indians, you see that the vast majority of indigenous peoples in Canada live off reserve and have been living off territory for some generations. Despite the stereotype that Native people live on reserves or come from a reserve, the reserve experience is only one part of the North American indigenous experience and its a minority experience
and Israeli Apartheid 49
among indigenous peoples. Even so, it is still integral to understanding the larger picture of where we find ourselves today as indigenous people and its important to understanding the history and struggles of First Nations communities because they are of course linked to all of our other struggles as indigenous peoples. By the way, the politically correct way of referring to reserves these days is First Nations communities, which is the term Im going to be using from here on. There are so many legal terms and categories of indigenous people in Canada its mind boggling. To name a few we have status, non status, treaty Indians, Bill C31 Indians, and many, many more. The way one got registered initially under the Indian Act was to line up in front of the government-appointed Indian agents table whenever he came to your community and register with him. So if you were off hunting the day he was there or you were sick or injured or had just given birth or you were too elderly to make what might be a long trip or you didnt give a shit about registering or whatever, and you didnt make it to register, you and all of your descendants to this day are not status Indians, regardless of your ancestry or how long your ancestors have lived on Turtle Island. This is important because it is only status Indians who were originally supposed to live in First Nations communities. There were mechanisms, through amendments to the Indian Act, by which indigenous people who had status and the benefits that came with it lost status over the years. (One must understand that the so-called benefits were and are only available to the extent the government lived up to the terms of its own legislation or negotiated treaties and provided benefits.) We cant talk about that much because its not the topic. But the benefits on paper include health care, housing, education and so on. But these commitments werent kept in whole or in part or the services were carried out in such a way that they did more harm than good and today we still find attempts by the feds to extinguish these benefits completely. The first thing I want to address is where reserves come from. They were made possible under legislation enacted in 1850 to set aside tracts of land reserved for indigenous communities. There50
after, specific reserve territories were negotiated in treaties. So its important to understand that not all First Nations signed treaties with the government, particularly on the west coast or in the far north, which means that not all status Indians or First Nations bands recognized by the feds have reserves or territories that the settler government recognizes. Even though they may have lived on, cared for and held ceremonies on that land for millennia before European arrival it doesnt give them legal right to it. Thats why we have, for example, disputes in BC where a corporation has the support of the police and the courts to bulldoze over peoples homes and sweat lodges so it can expand a ski resort. In addition, there are examples of people whose leaders signed treaties that allocated land to the community but the community never moved onto those lands and thus their descendants fell from the band rolls and never had status. One example, which I learned about when I was helping someone with research for a publication, is a community of Algonquins in the Ottawa valley who were urged by one of their chiefs not to move off territories their ancestors had lived on for generations in favor of relocating onto Golden Lake Reserve. So to this day we have people who live on these territories, carry Algonquin names, still do the ceremonies, still hunt and fish, still care for the wild rice beds but do not have status and do not want status (as they have said in their interviews) and in recent years have issued their own Algonquin identity documents, hunting licenses, fishing licenses, selected their own leaders, established councils to address their communitys needs and so on. Sometimes local officials try to curtail their inherent rights by challenging them in court over the hunting and fishing licenses, or theyve tried to sell off the wild rice beds to corporations or whatever, but to this day the non-status Algonquin have prevailed. Back to reserves. So, treaties created reserves. And keep in mind that indigenous leaders who signed treaties did so under duress of one kind or another. In some cases, they signed treaties in return for protection from the Americans or because settler incursion on their lands had resulted in dwindling food supplies and they were facing starvation or whatever. Nevertheless, no indigenous leader ever surrendered their nations sovereignty;
never gave up their right to self government. Treaties were nation to nation agreements. Then the Indian Act came along in 1876, which usurped the treaty negotiation processes and made the assumption that the settler government had an inherent right to make laws and govern people who already had fully functioning governments of their own. And those governments, by the way, were far more democratic than anything the Euro-Canadians insisted they adopt. While the traditional governments of the many hundreds of indigenous nations differed from each other in various ways, we can still generalize about some things. For example, we never voted but had consensus decision making processes that involved everyone in the community. Decision making and leadership didnt exclude women. In fact, we didnt even exclude children from decision-making. Basically its the Indian Act that to this day governs every aspect of life on reserves and has certainly impacted as well on off reserve indigenous people. The Indian Act decided who was an Indian and who wasnt who could live in First Nations communities. It laid the basis for the residential school system, it completely undermined indigenous systems of governance and imposed a band council system which was modeled on the parliamentary system, it blatantly discriminated against women by denying them the right to vote or run for band council office, and, because it is still an active law, affects us in many, many other ways. The Indian Act completely contradicted and undermined the authorities that indigenous women had in their communities prior to European arrival. While, as I mentioned, practices varied across Turtle Island, we can generalize and say that women had significant political roles and responsibilities: in some cases they directly assumed positions of leadership, in other cases they appointed and held leadership accountable. In some cases it was a bit of both of these. But whatever the system, women held significant authorities in government as well as economic, family and community life. This was completely overturned by the Indian act. Recent scholars like Kim Anderson and Bonita Lawrence have demonstrated that this wasnt just the result of patriarchal attitudes that coincidentally undermined womens authorities, but that these
measures were deliberate, premeditated strategies to disempower indigenous women in order to satisfy the objectives firstly, of causing such disruption to indigenous social organizations that settlers could more easily access the land and the resources within and secondly, satisfied the objective of assimilating indigenous peoples i.e. cultural genocide. So women were very specifically and deliberately targeted in legislation and other repressive measures. Under the Indian Act, the settler government assumed what are called fiduciary responsibilities for Indigenous peoples. They could hold land in trust for indigenous people and were supposed to make decisions regarding the resources of First Nations communities that were in the best interest of those communities. So we were looked on as children who were incapable of managing our own financial affairs. But of course, we have numerous examples of First Nations lands being sold and leased and so on where the extraordinary profits that resulted did not accrue to the First Nations communities at all but lined the pockets of settlers. For example, the Whitefish Lake band just recently received $37 million in compensation for a deal in 1886 where the band was paid only $399 for their timber rights and a year later the feds sold those rights for $43,000, a huge profit that never accrued to the community. Thats a somewhat happy ending but there are many bands still awaiting some form of justice in Canadian courts or havent gotten to Canadian courts. The feds even today control how First Nations lands are developed, which is the main reason why unemployment rates in First Nations communities is and always has been high. Today unemployment rates are between 50 and 80 percent (Assembly of First Nations website: hyyp://www.afn.ca/). There are few jobs, many seasonal, because there is no commercial or industrial activity unless the feds make it possible and when they do make it possible there are often conditions or situations that result in jobs going to people outside the community, to non-Natives. Theres a lot of disparity among reserves but, by and large, were certainly not talking about wealthy communities. So the impoverishment of those communities was created and is maintained by design (as is most poverty). Early on, life on reserves was very much characand Israeli Apartheid 51
terized by the arbitrary abuses of power of Indian agents. Indian agents were appointed by the feds, assigned to each First Nations community and given extraordinary powers to enforce the Indian Act and control every aspect of life. The Indian Agent: Could depose traditional leaders and replace them with band council chiefs. Was not elected but could overturn elected band council decisions and remove elected chiefs from office. Could withhold food rations or use them to coerce people to sign documents or whatever else was wanted. In fact they could force or coerce the signing of land treaties and other agreements with impunity. Were the arresting officer, prosecutor and judge in the community. Had the power to determine who qualified as a Status Indian. As I mentioned, they did the original count for the Indian registry that was basically a complete farce. They also interpreted the amendments to the Indian Act that further defined status, which Ill speak to later. Upon the death of a band member, the Indian Agent dispersed property and valuables (that often ended up in their own pockets). Had the power to determine who could live on reserve and who could visit. So when a woman lost status due to the discriminatory aspects of the Indian Act, the Indian Agent could evict her and deny her the right to return to live or even visit her family and friends. An amendment addressing trespassing allowed for the Indian Agent to arrest anybody visiting a reserve after dark. Anyone who wanted to work for wages off reserve had to obtain the permission of the Indian Agent who, if he approved, would issue a pass stating where one could go and for how long. Was complicit in coercing or forcing parents to send their children to residential schools. And they werent above kidnapping children and handing them over to school officials. (Residential schools, contracted out by the feds to the churches, were places where children as young as four were subjected to physical, emotional and sexual abuse; where they were forced to work in fields, shops and laundries; where some children, because of the treatment they received, ended up dead.) The last
52
federally run school closed in 1988, so were not talking about ancient history here. Made decisions concerning the use of reserve lands. For example, he could decide to lease lands out to pulp and paper mills or mining companies. In Kahnawake in 1954, the Indian agent, without consultation, ceded a huge tract of territory for the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway. In the passage below, Dan Ennis of the Tobique First Nation gives a first hand account of life under the Indian Agents authority (from Sharing our Wabanaki Perspective by Dan Ennis, http://www.unb. edu/web/bruns/0001/issue5/oped/wabanaki.html). In 1940, when I was a child, I experienced the poison of the racist mindset firsthand. It was a traumatic experience for a boy of three or four to watch as my dad was taken away from our small family to jail because he tried to keep his family warm. It was cold and we needed wood for heat so my dad went out to the woods to cut firewood for his family. He did it without asking permission from the Indian agent because the Indian agent was away on vacation. As it was winter, my father could not wait to ask for permission. He knew he had to take care of his family and that wouldnt wait for the return of the Indian agent. My dad did what had to be done. When the Indian agent returned from vacation, he was immediately informed about my dads wood cutting. My father was summoned to the Indian agents office where he confirmed that he had, in fact, cut the wood for his family. The Indian agent tried him and found him guilty of an offence and imposed a sentence of five days in jail to teach him a lesson. Within the span of just a few minutes from leaving his home, my father was in jail for cutting wood to keep his family warm. In those days, the white Indian agent was god on the reserve. He was accountable to absolutely no one and certainly not in any way to the Indian people. The irony of this particular situation is that the wood cut by my father at that time was located on Indian reserve land and there was no such legislation to charge my father with this offense. It was simply the white Indian agents way of asserting his power, control and authority over my father and our people. My dad had to be made an example to ensure no other Indians would get similar ideas about doing anything without the agents permission.
So that gives us some taste of the kind of corruption that was enshrined in the government and justice systems imposed on First Nations communities. It really makes me laugh bitterly when I hear of Canadian officials these days charging First Nations bands or band members with being corrupt. The system itself is corrupt and settler authorities and Christian clergy over the years have hardly ever been role models of integrity and honesty. Through various amendments to the Indian Act, we also saw over time an erosion in the total amount of territory allocated to First Nations communities. In some cases, reserves were dissolved or relocated to allow for the expansion of towns and municipalities, like Edmonton, for example. A 1911 amendment allowed portions of reserves to be seized by municipalities for roads, railways or other public purposes. A couple of amendments prohibited First Nations from contesting in court decisions where all or parts of their territories were taken. The law for a crucial time very blatantly prohibited Indian people from hiring lawyers, filing court papers and even raising money with the intent of contesting a land claim. In 1936 the Department of Indian Affairs was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Mines and Resources, which made it even clearer what the settler government was really concerned about. As reserve territories were being stolen, exploited or encroached on by settlers there were also Indian Act amendments that were designed to strip people of their status (particularly women) and force them off reserves. The rationale for this was, as I mentioned, assimilation or cultural genocide another form of genocide. So women who married non-status men, whether they were white or not, lost their status, benefits and treaty rights and had to leave their communities and families. It was a completely discriminatory process, not in the least because, when men did the same thing, they were allowed to keep their status and, in fact, status would be granted to their white or non-status wives and even step children that pre-existed the marriage. So you had white settlers with status cards and the right to live in First Nations communities while there were full blooded indigenous women who couldnt set foot on their territories. This was in complete contradiction to
matrilineal indigenous practices where the mothers nationality and clan membership determined the childs. Some men and their families as well lost status and the right to live in First Nations communities when they enlisted in the military or in some cases when they enrolled in secondary educational institutions or, until 1960, when they wanted to vote in federal elections. Sometimes whole communities were declared non status so that their land could be taken, and that affected everyone. Blood quantum became an issue at various times and enabled the eviction of people from reserves because they were deemed to not have enough Indian blood (From Real Indians and Others: Mixed-Blood Urban Native Peoples and Indigenous Nationhood by Bonita Lawrence. University of Nebraska Press. 2004). In 1951 an Indian Act amendment made provincial law applicable in First Nations communities to cover gaps in federal legislation and this paved the way for what we now call the 60s scoop because it gave provincial child welfare agencies the power to seize hundreds of First Nations children and place them in non-indigenous foster homes, again furthering the genocide project. There are many stories of the experiences of what happened to people after they were stripped of their status. The traumatic implications of having to leave your home and family for often urban settings where you may not have spoken the language, where there was no community, family, financial or emotional support of any kind are huge. Increasingly non-status communities have been organizing. Unfortunately we dont have a lot of time to discuss that now but Bonita Lawrences book, Real Indians and Others, speaks to the history of nonstatus, mixed race indigenous communities and some of the struggles people have faced over the generations. According to some analyses, amendments to the Indian Act since 1951 are considered friendlier to indigenous peoples because they were made in consultation with indigenous organizations or were made in response indigenous activists who lobbied for the changes. Bill C31, another amendment to the Indian Act passed in 1985, falls into this category of being a friendly amendment. C31 addressed the concerns of women who had lost their
status, housing, benefits and access to their communities through marrying non-status men. C31 allowed them to apply for status and something like 120,000 women have had their status reinstated. What is often not mentioned however is that 107,000 women did not have their status reinstated after applying. The federal government of course determined all the criteria and conditions regarding who could have their status reinstated. The C31 amendment has been criticized about, among other things, the second generation cutoff, which prohibits reinstated women from passing status on to their children. So it doesnt address the genocide issue at all. Basically if we accept the definitions of status offered by the Indian Act, its been predicted that First Nations people will cease to exist in a few generations. Not because the actual people have ceased to exist but because the legally defined category of Indians (i.e., First Nations people) wont exist and everybody will be unregistered, non status and assimilated. Well all be Canadians with no land rights and no recognition of our inherent rights as Aboriginal peoples generally. Of course sovereigntists question the right of the Canadian parliament now or at any other time in history to make laws that govern our nations, including laws that define who is and is not a member of our nations, where our territorial boundaries lie and so on. *** So, thats a very brief synopsis of how reserves were established and it should give the reader insight into the history of some of the struggles being waged today by First Nations people on Turtle Island. It should also help people question the myth commonly referred to as the Canadian history. The simple truth is that the land and resources of First Nations people have been subsidizing the Canadian
economy for generations. The basis of the wealth and standard of living that we enjoy on Turtle Island is premised on the theft of land and resources from the First Peoples, a process that continues to this day. While First Nations children were being abused in residential schools and foster care, the colonizers were reaping huge profits exploiting the resources of First Nations territories. While First Nations people were being jailed for hunting and fishing without a license or for working off their reserves without a pass from the Indian agent, the settlers passed laws that said, for example, that Indians could not sell their produce in Torontos St. Lawrence market (because white farmers didnt want the competition). Nevertheless our communities across Turtle Island continue to struggle with great courage for their very survival as well as the inherent rights of future generations. While most media like to focus on dramatic events like the Oka Crisis, the murder of activist Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park or the current Six Nations land reclamation (all important struggles), anti-genocidal activities are practiced in all communities and include things as basic as cultural and language programs. In this struggle, our Elders, cultural leaders and warriors talk about a paradigm shift that recognizes our relationship to the land on which we depend for life; recognizes our roles and responsibilities to each other in a community that includes other species besides human beings as well as those yet to be born. They speak of spiritual development, dignity and peace. In their wisdom we find a system of values that challenges political, economic and social institutions of Canada. In the wisdom of Elders we find encouragement to share, trade, learn, grow and create something new and wondrous.
4
empires Ally: Canadian foreign Policy

by Greg Albo (Socialist Project Bulletin No.37, November 24, 2006. Updated May 2008. www.socialistproject.ca)
ince the coming into power of the Stephen Harper Conservative government in January of 2006, there has been much gnashing of teeth over the foreign policy stance of Canada. In particular, Canadas relation with the U.S. on a phalanx of fronts has been at the centre of controversy. One has been the softwood lumber deal cut by Ambassador Michael Wilson, which limits Canadian lumber exports to the U.S. and allows the Americans to keep $1 billion in duties ruled by trade tribunals as illegal. This has been judged by the government as a necessary step to re-establishing good bilateral relations to secure and deepen economic integration. A second has been Canadas Middle East policy, in terms of the deployment of Canadian troops into a major combat position in southern Afghanistan, and the uncompromising support for the Israeli and U.S. positions on the 2006 assault of Lebanon and continuing siege Gaza by Israel. These stances have been celebrated by the Right, especially the cynics who dominate the national media in defending U.S. policies at every turn, as bringing a new ethical realism to Canadian foreign policies. Liberal commentators have lamented the break from the approach of the Chretien regime (quietly ignoring the Martin interregnum). Indeed, the Liberal leadership troika of Stephen Dion, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae have been in unison with respect to the balance of sending troops to Kabul to defend the new U.S. puppet Karzai regime and the navy into the Arabian Gulf, but not directly participating in the coalition of the willing in the U.S. invasion of Iraq or openly adopting the ballistic missile defence system. For their part, the social Left and the NDP have cursed the drift away from a peacekeeping role for Canadas armed forces (alGreg Albo teaches political economy at York University.
though the NDP initially backed the Conservative Party Parliamentary resolution on the Kandahar mission), and the bypassing of multilateral institutions to support unilateral U.S. policies to remake the global order. The NDP is now taking a position against the Afghan deployment, largely on the basis of an inappropriate mix of development, peacekeeping and military objectives. While the Chretien government manoeuvrings to allow some Canadian distance from U.S. policies should not be naysayed, none of these views come to grips with the way geopolitical alliances have shifted during the current phase of neoliberalism. Nor do they address the particular role of imperialist ally of the U.S. that Canada has long occupied, and the way Canadian foreign policy has been transformed particularly with respect to the Middle East with the changed geo-political context since 2001.
amerIcan geo-polITIcal sTraTegIes
Since the military defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam and the economic turmoil of the1970s, the geopolitical context of the world market and North American relations have undergone enormous transformations. Although this can now be seen as a period of the formation of neoliberal globalization under American hegemony, it has also been marked by different phases, contradictions and rivalries in the world order and inter-state relations. The early 1980s, for instance, were dominated by the second cold war military build-ups in the old U.S.S.R. and the U.S., and the rising trade and competitive capacities of Europe and East Asia. The emergence of the neoliberal policy framework in the late 1970s was a means to reassert U.S. primacy in the world

order and address questions of American economic decline. The cold war division began to shred at the end of the 1980s, as the Soviet bloc collapsed and China made an explicit turn toward capitalism. The construction of a new system of regional alliances and international policy developments notably the European Union (EU), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), East Asia trade and production networks encompassing China, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) gained momentum through the 1990s. These alliances both responded to and fostered the internationalization of capital. The relations of cooperation and competitiveness between the advanced capitalist countries became redefined, as did the relations between the dominant countries of the centre and the dominated countries in the peripheries of the world. As these processes of globalization moved to the centre of political debate and government calculation, neoliberal policies became widespread as few states and their ruling classes dared break from the world market and the Washington consensus pushing economic liberalization. It is a striking fact of this phase of neoliberalism that the end of the cold war did not lead the U.S. to dismantle its military empire and regional alliances. Indeed, it extended them and added additional overseas military deployments under both the Bush-Republican and Clinton-Democratic administrations. It became common across the political spectrum to speak of a new imperialism (with the political Right in both the U.S. and Canada actively endorsing the project), given U.S. assertiveness over global security and economic issues in a unipolar world of a single global superpower. Universally, inter-state relations in the world order became defined, in the first instance, by particular relations to the global hegemon. This was the case even in the context of deep historical and geographical relations apart from American state interests. A new American empire had emerged out of the debris of the Cold War system. It is a particular empire of global capital, operating through the hierarchy of the nation-state system dominated by Western capitalist interests, and the economic, military and diplomatic hegemony of the U.S. It needs to be underlined that the post Septem
ber 2001 geo-political context intensified rather than transformed the developments that had been evolving over the 1990s. The attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York City gave the U.S. state the opportunity to place its post-Cold War objective of American primacy in the world order in a new set of security doctrines. It also paved the way for the extension of its overseas military capabilities, most importantly over varied contested oil supply routes in the Middle East and Asia. The new U.S. agenda became enshrined in the September 2002 U.S. national security statement laying down the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive deterrence (although in practice it has been one of preventive intervention without any serious possibility of imminent attack of the U.S. to pursue American imperial strategies). This doctrine claimed the right for the U.S. to act on its own apart from sanction from multilateral institutions, namely the United Nations (UN) Security Council (that it in any case dominated), or concerns for cooperative security as negotiated with its NATO allies. The recasting of American foreign policy in terms of a globally assertive national interest meant an even greater willingness to act unilaterally than had been the case in the past, when cold war politics compelled nominal consultation with key allies. This was the basis for the U.S. bullying the UN to support the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, and the decision to attack Iraq, under publicly stated specious grounds, without UN approval. It has also meant that the U.S. has become more aggressive in the governance of the world market, as in the scuttling of the Doha round WTO negotiations. It has been willing to sacrifice the purity of neoliberal doctrines of free markets in pursuit of its own trade interests and currency policy. Even with the Republican defeat in the November 2006 congressional elections, with its indirect rejection of the American intervention in Iraq, it is necessary to be quite sceptical that this will mean a turn in American primacy objectives as they have evolved over the last decades. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group under the leadership of James Baker, former central advisor to the earlier Bush presidency, was essentially an effort to retain the primacy strategy. It would reposition the American intervention in Iraq in a way that would allow engagement with
a wider set of states in the region, that neoconservative dogmas blocked. This would shift some balances of power in the region, but not deliver a fatal blow to American positions. These are themes that have continued into the Presidential campaigns of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It needs to be underlined that both Iran and Syria want to normalize their relations with the global capitalist order and not at all to withdraw from it. The ruling classes in these states would be quite happy to have greater freedom to pursue neoliberal strategies with the support of the international economic agencies. Even the continuance of the chaos in Iraq, or a messy withdrawal, would only initially signal a specific defeat for American strategy in the Middle East region. The American position in the greater Middle East would still likely be ahead of where it was pre-1990s in terms of alliances and military bases; such a defeat would not mean a recasting of the overall objectives of the American primacy strategy or its operational modalities (and both American parties are initiative will forward proposals to re-establish this on other fronts); and the European Union and China are still far away from being able to offer any alternative (capitalist) world order to the American one (the ruling blocs in these zones remain quite interdependent with the U.S., although they are competitive rivals for market shares).
canada, The u.s. and The World order
The U.S. remaking of inter-state relations over the period of neoliberalism has posed several key issues for Canada, in both its immediate relationship with the U.S. and place in the world order. This must first be understood not in the details of the policy shifts that have taken place in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but in the dynamics of global power relations. First, capitalism is a social order in which a basic contradiction resides in the institutional separation of territoriallybased sovereign states and the global accumulation of capital that systematically traverses international borders. The geopolitical relations between states manage this contradiction, and maintain the hierarchy between them in particular institutions such as the WTO or NATO. For Canada, this is foremost the bilateral relationship with the U.S. maintained
through the institutions of NAFTA and the North American security complex. These institutions sustain Canada as a subordinate ally of U.S. imperialism, but with Canadas own imperial interests also being advanced within them. Second, the world market under neoliberalism has been characterized by asymmetries in trading relations and an explosion of financial capital. This has meant a growing interpenetration of capital across states. New forms of global economic governance and regional trade blocs foster and sustain these economic processes. The preferential trading arrangements of NAFTA, as well as the numerous other trade agreements guiding economic relations across the Americas, are meant to support the internationalization of capital as much as to free cross-border trade. This has built up material as well as ideological support for projects of deep integration amongst capitalist and state interests in Canada. Canadian foreign policy positions defend the institutions of NAFTA and these material interests even when NAFTA blatantly fails, as in the case of the continual U.S. usage of countervailing measures against Canadian lumber exports in the face of NAFTA dispute settlement rulings. Indeed, defence of the general economic interests of Canadian capital, which necessarily includes the American capital invested in Canada and Canadian investments in the U.S., has recast the entire foreign policy apparatus of the Canadian state. This raises a third point: to sustain global accumulation, foreign policy, as well as the defence and security arms of the state, increasingly become drawn into defending economic and geo-political interests. Indeed, the period of neoliberalism has seen a consistent increase in the relative power of the international and coercive apparatuses of the state in support of capitalist market interests domestically and internationally. The economic security of NAFTA for business interests has become directly linked to North American security and thus imperial security. This has steadily made more untenable the small independent space for foreign policy that Canada had opened up for itself during the postwar period. At that time, Canadas foreign policy projected itself as a middle-level power. This meant working as an ally of the U.S. through multilateral institutions, pushing for cooperative negotiation of
security amongst the capitalist powers, and carving out space for particular international positions with third world countries (although the last was hopelessly both imperial and cooperative in nature). An attempt was made to re-invent this orientation in the late 1990s under then External Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy and his soft power proposals for human and collective security as the central focus of Canadian foreign policy. But this agenda was dead even as the ideas were being drafted. Neoliberalism and the American empire swept aside any such attempts at embedding ethical norms in international relations and expanding autonomy in foreign policy positions. The signing of the initial Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. in 1989 had effectively already killed this orientation on a bilateral basis.
reorIenTIng canadIan ForeIgn polIcy
Since September 2001 Canada has substantially re-organized its security and international policies to support the new geo-political context established by the U.S. The Canadian state has had the support of key economic interests notably the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and all the business think tanks like the C.D. Howe Research Institute in doing so. It fits their common project of deepening integration with the U.S. First, the immediate response after 9/11 was to develop parallel tracks between a new security agenda to keep pace with U.S. developments and maintaining North American integration. This included: a new Cabinet National Security Committee; budgetary increases for all the agencies involved in policing, anti-terrorism and security work; extension of funds and powers for policing borders and airports, linked to a new Smart Borders Act; new legislative powers in the form of an Anti-Terrorism Act, which widened the definition of terrorism and scope for investigation, allowed for preventive detentions and issuing of security certificates, and extended the range of the Official Secrets Act; and an immediate increase in the military budget, particularly for the JTF2 special forces for rapid deployment and to deploy troops to the Gulf and Afghanistan as a direct contribution to the U.S. War on Terror. These measures set in motion wider negotiations between Canada and the U.S. over
58
Fortress North America. Second, the architecture of the Canadian state was significantly re-designed so that security and military capacities, over and above increased budgets, were given increased prominence. The list is sweeping: strengthening the security and defence committees and secretariats in the PMO and Privy Council Office; raising the profile of Canada-U.S. relations in Parliament and giving the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. cabinet access; a new Public Safety Act (2004) and a New Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, paralleling and co-ordinating with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; an Integrated Threat Assessment Centre under CSIS; under the RCMP, Integrated Border Enforcement Teams and Integrated National Security Teams, coordinating with U.S. policing agencies; new coordinative relations between CSIS and the CIA; extending the capacities for coordination at the Canada-U.S. border via shared data-bases, joint screening, safe third country provisions sending refugees back to the U.S. if that is the first country they reached, and plans for biometric screening; and extensive interdepartmental co-operation between Canada and U.S. for all departments having either a security or borders dimension in their mandates. This reorganization of the state strengthened the role of the security and policing apparatuses in all dimensions of Canadian foreign policy. The Harper government has sought only to tighten these structures administratively, make the PMO the fulcrum for security and foreign policy decision-making, and to push ahead the Fortress North America agenda, notably adding securing the Arctic to the mix. Third, a new strategic framework for foreign policy has been evolving. The Chretien governments Securing an Open Society: Canadas National Security Policy (2004) moved away from Axworthys human security agenda, and also took distance from the most vociferous dimensions of the Bush Doctrine. But it also aligned Canada with American security concerns and committed Canada to meeting the new U.S. security requirements. The International Policy Statement (2005) released by the Martin government and the NAFTA leaders Waco Declaration on a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (2005), however,
more strongly aligned Canada with U.S. security and economic concerns. The Harper government has largely left these documents to the side, but he has pushed even more strongly in the direction they point of more closely defining Canadian foreign policy interests as tied to U.S. security concerns and imperial agendas to ensure Canadian capitalists access to U.S. markets for their goods and capital. Finally, the Canadian military has been systematically renovated in its operational capabilities and its flexibility for overseas deployment. Canada has depleted its peacekeeping missions to almost nil, and has become by many tallies the third largest contributor to the War on Terror after the U.S. and Britain. The Chretien budgets had begun to expand military budgets; Martin had pledged in 2005 almost $13 billion over five years; and the first Harper budget of 2006 pledged an additional $5 billion beyond committed defence outlays, and real expenditure increases followed the next year as well. The 2008 budget went further, and proposed a Canada First Defence Strategy, and raised the defence budget for 2008-09 to $18.8 billion. This included an automatic annual defence spending escalator guaranteeing an increase in the defence budget of 2 per cent. This is to say that the defence budget will increase by a guaranteed 2 per cent every year. This is estimated to add an additional $12 billion to the defence budget over 20 years, and increase Canadian military expenditures to some of the highest levels since the second world war. Canada now ranks sixth among NATO countries in terms of military spending. These expenditures have also been for expanding troop levels, their operations in the field, and new armaments. It is also matched by a shift in Canadian military doctrines toward networked joint capabilities and inter-operability for multiforce, multi-country operations. This essentially means improved capacity to support U.S. military operations in pursuit of its and Canadian imperial ambitions. The increasing role of the Canadian military in southern Afghanistan and the general belligerence of Canada over the last months on the need for wider NATO mobilization in the war effort against traditional docile Canadian stances on NATO is a key symbol of the shift of Canadian military agendas.
canada and The mIddle easT
The Middle East has, literally, been the battleground where Canadas new foreign policy has been foremost tested (although the Western and Canadian intervention against democratic processes in Haiti is just as telling). Canada has long toed British and then American positions on the Middle East, notably as part of the majority opinion of the 1947 eleven member United Nations Special Committee on Palestine that argued for partition into Jewish and Arab states. Canada adopted some very minor measures in support of Middle East democracy and Palestinian rights over the 1990s. This was the socalled balance of Canadas position. But the previous Liberal government of Paul Martin had already started to tie Canada closer to American policies in the region and Israeli positions. This could be seen in the Martin government endorsing Canadian military deployment into a combat role in southern Afghanistan, and breaking with the Chretien policy of peacekeeping in Kabul. But it could also be seen in the Martin government shifting UN General Assembly votes, after extensive lobbying by Zionist forces in Canada, to side with the U.S., Israel and a few other American vassal states in resolutions before the United Nations on Israels failure to uphold United Nations resolutions on Palestine and other human rights issues. The most revealing was the July 2004 Canadian abstention on a General Assembly resolution calling for Israel to abide by the International Court of Justice ruling on the illegality of Israels apartheid wall barrier in the West Bank. In November 2005, Martin put this before the United Jewish Communities as Israels values are Canadas values. These were symbolically significant shifts, acknowledging the break with what had been the precepts of Canadian international stances. Rather than continuing with Canadas historical support for multilateralism and international rule of law, Canada now openly defended the right to exercise unilateral military measures for the U.S. and Israel, and also separate international rules on a host of issues for the two major rogue states from the rules and laws binding others. (At the same time, Canada has hypocritically followed the U.S. in claiming only to want to hold North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and others to international rules and norms in purand Israeli Apartheid 59
suing various sanctions and measures against these states.) According to Canadas new foreign policy position on the Middle East, some states have the right to extra-territorial sovereignty, while other states can exercise their sovereign rights only at the discretion of the major powers. This is where the Liberals had already moved Canadian foreign policy (and through the minority Parliament had received only minimal dissent from the NDP) before their defeat. Harpers Conservatives have taken these positions up even more vigorously than the previous Liberals, continually invoking all the American clichs of how the world has changed since 9/11. On the fifth anniversary of the atrocity, Harper went so far as to term it an attack on Canada, and the various interventions in the Middle East as measures to prevent terrorism in Canada. Indeed, this has become the governments principal justification for the extension of the Canadian mission mandate in southern Afghanistan. And it was also invoked as the reason for the September 2006 decision to increase Canadian combat troops and to deploy a new level of arms in the form of additional fighter jets and tanks with long-range firing capacities. Additional calls by Canadian generals (and virtually the entire militaryindustrial establishment in Canada) for increasing Canadian troop levels and weapons purchases have continued, including through the redeployment of Canadian troops to Kandahar province in a combat position and the extension of the mission to 2012. The Harper government inherited the Afghanistan mission but they have defined it as a centre-piece of their government, partly on its own terms and partly in embracing the American geo-political vision. A similar realignment of Canadian foreign policy under Harper can be seen with respect to policies on Israel and Palestine. Canada had only begrudgingly recognized the right of the Palestinian peoples to self-determination. Even after supporting United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 after the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza, Canada only diplomatically expressed concern for a just settlement, particularly with reference to refugees. Through the 1980s, Canada avoided referring to a Palestinian state, preferring to speak only of a Palestinian entity or homeland. The first intifidah forced Canada to acknowledge
60
the Palestinian right to self-determination, and with the Oslo Accord to allow that a Palestinian state might result from negotiations. It was only with UN Security Council Resolution 1397 of 2002 that outlined a two-state solution that Canada came to recognize Palestinian statehood, although continuing to define Israel as a religious-ethnic Jewish state. It is these embarrassingly small steps toward recognition of the rights of the Palestinian peoples that the Martin and then Harper governments have had Canada back off from. Harper has more consistently aligned Canadas UN votes on Palestinian rights in line with the three key dissenters Israel, the U.S. and Australia. These have included abstaining on UN resolutions on the Palestinian right to self-determination, Israel assenting to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Israel not exploiting the natural resources of the Occupied Territories. The Harper government has, moreover, retreated in its diplomatic language on Palestinian statehood, preferring now only to speak of Palestinian aspirations within the region. The policy realignment is also evidenced by the Canadian governments relation to the Palestinian Authority. In 2006, Harper made Canada the first nation to place sanctions on the newly elected Hamas government in the Palestinian territories. This included ending direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (in practice, some projects have ended, some restructured, and some channelled through multilateral organizations), ending support by Canadian government departments to the PA and a review of all partnership projects, and limiting contact of Canadian officials with Palestinian counterparts. Canadian aid to Palestine is tiny (about 1 percent of aid donated, one of the least generous of major donors), but the sanctions added to the pressures leading to the escalation of hostilities in the Gaza, and the return of Israeli occupation. Canada has subsequently worked closely with the U.S., Britain and Israel to isolate Hamas in Gaza, while attempting to work with the West Bank centred emergency Fatah government, effectively splitting the Palestinian Authority. As part of this effort to divide Palestinians, Canada has restored its assistance to the West Bank authority. In doing so, Canada continues to ignore the construction of the apartheid wall, the humanitarian disaster in Gaza,
and the continued Israeli development of illegal settlements in the West Bank. Finally, the Canadian government response to Israels aggressive assaults on both Gaza and Lebanon in summer 2006 indicated the openly partisan embrace of American and Israeli positions. Israels interventions in Lebanon clearly violated international law in the collective punishment, wholesale destruction of civilian infrastructure and killing of innocents. Israels actions faced the condemnation of world opinion, and the vast majority of states of the world. But Harper lined up Canada with the U.S. at the July 2006 G8 meetings in defence of the Israeli bombardments. Indeed, Harper became and has remained the most vociferous defender of the proportionality of the ferocious Israeli attacks terming them a measured response. Even after Canadian civilians were killed by Israeli bombardments, Harper refused to condemn Israel for the large number of civilian casualties and continued to defend its use of force, including the blanket aerial bombings. (Then Liberal leadership contender and now deputy leader, Michael Ignatieff, went even further in defending Israels actions defending Israels bombing of civilian buildings as part of a kind of dirty war youre in when you have to do this and Im not losing any sleep about that.) Indeed, at the September 2006 Francophonie meetings Harper vetoed a resolution deploring the impact of the war on Lebanese civilians. Not surprisingly, Canada was absent from the list of donors struck at the end of the conflict to rebuild Lebanon, and has remained a very minor aid donor. In Canadas foreign policy under Harper, there appear to be no legal or moral limits of acceptable international conduct being able to be breeched in the case of Israel.
dIssenT and democracy
It is clear that a majority of Canadians are increasingly uncomfortable with Canadian foreign policy positions. Half of the population consistently dissents from Canadian troops being in Afghanistan. This is even with the national media keeping critical voices of the Canadian intervention marginal. And even higher poll numbers time and again register opposition to American policies more generally. They are rejecting the reckless and morally troubling foreign policy position that Canada now
endorses: closer integration into U.S. foreign policy positions, including the doctrine of the right of the U.S. and Israel alone to use military pre-emptive intervention, apart from any sanction by the UN Security Council; uncritical alignment with U.S. and Israeli military interventions, including more active Canadian military deployments; and political and bureaucratic disregard for Canadians who might get in the way of these foreign policy positions, whether this is Canadians stranded in Lebanon, Canadians illegally extradited in the U.S. war on terror sweep, or Canadians arrested and detained on feeble charges of terrorism in Canada.. There is a growing contradiction between the desires of the Canadian people for an independent foreign policy, and the alignment with American imperialist and security objectives. This desire is also at odds with the openly imperialist agenda that has formed in Canadian capitalist and state elites. This has made Canada one of the Empires strongest allies. The new Canadian imperialist agenda can be seen in the work of the North American Competitiveness Council, where leading North American capitalists and political elites have been strategizing on furthering the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America; and in the October 2006 report of the influential Parliamentary Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence calling for Canada to join the U.S. ballistic missile defence programme and closer military and economic integration to secure North American interests around the world. The political orientation of Canadian foreign policy and the ruling classes have parted with any popular efficacy of democracy in Canada. Popular social forces in Canada do not face this alone. It is a reflection of a deeper antagonism of the current world order. The U.S. objectives of re-establishing its global primacy and unilateral authority contradicts the liberal promises of a world order based on a community of equal sovereign nations governed by international legal and policy norms. The Bush doctrine and the imperial interventions across the Middle East, supported by Canada and the other Western powers, is the most visible symbol of this geo-political strategy. One of capitalisms most powerful fictions is not for the first time being laid bare for what it is: naked self-interest
Israel, racism and the Canadian Media

by Dan Freeman-Maloy (reprinted from Znet, 21 July 2006)
n the Canadian media, Israel is provoked, and then responds. For the military attacks on the Gaza Strip in late June and early July, 2006, we are told that the provocation was the June 25 operation by Palestinian resistance fighters against a military outpost near Gaza, and specifically the capture of an Israeli tank gunner. The Palestinian operation, according to most Canadian media, was unprovoked it could not have been provoked by the Israeli attacks leading up to the operation, though in June alone these had already killed 49 Palestinians. Nor could it have been provoked by the imprisonment of 359 Palestinian children, 105 Palestinian female adults and another 9000 plus Arab males (mostly Palestinians) in Israeli jails, or by the mass starvation of Gaza. As a June 30 editorial in The Globe and Mail put it, the onus for resolving the confrontation lies with Hamas, and while Palestinians must quietly endure tank shelling, air strikes and starvation, Israel is within its right to respond to terrorism and violence. Without pause, Israel has since gone on to invade Lebanon, killing hundreds of Lebanese, while Gaza continues to starve. In the Canadian media, Israel was provoked to do so, in this case by the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah. Hizbullah has not been provoked in the same way the Palestinians have been. So what prompted their action? An obvious possibility is that they were moved to action by the Israeli assault on Gaza. By the time Hizbullah carried out its July 12 attack, the Israeli escalation following June 25 had already claimed another 67 Palestinian lives. More direct grievances with Israel include the continued Israeli imprisonment of many Lebanese, particularly Hizbullah supporters, and the Israeli live ammunition training on the Lebanese border which recently
62
killed several Lebanese villagers. But one could barely begin to consider this on the basis of information provided by Canadian media. No attacks on Israel can have been provoked. All of Israels attacks must be provoked and defensive. On July 13, Prime Minister Stephen Harper revealed the extent to which this logic has come to dominate Canadian diplomacy. With the Israeli military intensifying its assault on the Lebanese population and on critical civilian infrastructure, Harper described the massive attack as a measured exercise of Israels right to defend itself. Mainstream media joined in the chorus: Faced with such aggression, Israel had no choice but to strike back, a July 15 Globe and Mail editorial declared. The next day, several Canadians were added to the sky-rocketing death count from Israeli massacres. Israels massacres in Gaza and southern Lebanon coincide with a shift in Canadian foreign policy. Under the past two regimes (Martins Liberals and now Harpers Conservatives), Canada has rapidly shed any pretense of having an independent foreign policy and has aligned itself completely with the United States, Israels chief financial backer and arms dealer. Where past Canadian regimes would have settled for silent complicity in war crimes, Harper actively cheers and participates in them. This drastic realignment of Canadian policy happens at a time when the US and Israel are embarking on aggressive, criminal wars involving major human rights violations. For Canadians to accept this, they will have to consume an equally drastic dose of racism, dehumanization, and distorted understanding. Getting them to do so may be somewhat of a challenge. The Canadian media have taken up the task with gusto.
aggressIon and deFense
No nation would stand by while its enemies bombarded its towns and cities. The Globe and Mail Editorial, July 15, 2006
Of course, the Globes editors were not talking about the Palestinian nation. The Palestinians are expected to stand by while Israel bombards its towns and cities, as it has been doing continuously for the past six years, with a sharp escalation in June well before June 25, by which time of the month 49 Palestinians had already been killed. But when Palestinians resist through armed struggle, we read on The Globe and Mails editorial pages that Israels right to respond to the latest Palestinian provocations is beyond question. We cannot expect superhuman effort from Israel, the editors explain, and this is what would be required to resist retaliating. Through most of June, the situation was quite different but then it was only Palestinians who were being killed, only Palestinians who were starving. This was, in the words of the Toronto Stars Mitch Potter, a period of relative calm. For disturbing this calm, Palestinians bear a double responsibility: for aggression against Israel, and for forcing Israel to attack Palestinians in response. As Potter insists on repeating, the ongoing Israeli assault was itself sparked initially by the June 25 capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian militants. In fact, if the notion of self-defense was applied with any consistency, the operation of June 25 would be beyond reproach. Following an economic siege and recurring air strikes on their communities, Palestinian fighters based in the Gaza Strip initiated an attack against the Israeli military. This is no small feat, since Gazas airspace and borders are under tight Israeli control, and it is difficult for a lightly armed popular resistance to bring down F-16s. Nonetheless, the fighters managed to tunnel their way underground for hundreds of metres, deep beneath Israeli fortifications, to reach a military outpost for their raid. Two Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting, as were two Palestinians, creating a very rare symmetry in the death count. Palestinian fighters also destroyed an Israeli tank, likely one of those that regularly shell Palestinian communities from such outposts. They captured the tank gunner and brought him back to Gaza as
a prisoner of war. The Palestinian resistance thus had one Israeli detainee, as against some 10,000 prisoners on the Israeli side. The resistance group offered a limited exchange. They would release the tank gunner if Israel freed Palestinian child prisoners, female prisoners, and approximately 1,000 administrative detainees currently in Israeli prisons without charge. A negotiated settlement reached through conditions of reciprocity and dignity could well have seen the soldier released. But Israel had a different plan. As former Israeli intelligence director Shlomo Gazit explained, the situation served as a pretext for escalating military operations in Gaza. Israeli forces began a series of forceful incursions, destroying critical civilian infrastructure though air strikes, shelling Palestinian communities, and instituting a comprehensive siege on the territory. These escalations quickly revealed the Israeli goal as regime change. The Israeli military rounded up and detained 64 political leaders from the occupied West Bank and Gaza, including elected legislators and a third of the Palestinian Cabinet. It began aerial bombardment of central civilian structures housing the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli regime responsible for these attacks enjoys thorough support from the Canadian government. Its Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, visited Canada little more than a year ago. During the visit, he received a pledge from the federal government that it would maintain preferential trade policies towards Israel. Olmert also visited Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty at Queens Park, where he helped to set up a parallel provincial trade arrangement. Joking with reporters as he presented McGuinty with a gift, Olmert asked: Do you want us to hug? (www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=6122&s=1) Olmert and Canadian officials did everything but. The Harper government strengthened links with Israel further, making Canada still more complicit in ongoing Israeli crimes. As Israeli attacks ravaged Gaza, journalists with concern for balance ought to have paid attention to who was doing the killing and who the victims were. Instead, Canadian media continued shifting focus to Palestinian culpability and encouraging the governments pro-Israel partisanship. The spin in news coverage was spelled out explicitly on editorial
pages. The Toronto Stars editors called attention to the folly of what [Palestinians] wrought by electing a Hamas government, while staking limited optimism on the hope of a chastened Palestinian Authority.( June 29) The editors of the National Post and The Globe and Mail held Palestinians directly responsible for Israeli attacks. That there is a humanitarian tragedy afflicting the Palestinian people there can be no doubt, a July 29 National Post editorial conceded, but in the current context, it is a tragedy entirely of their own making. On June 30, The Globes editors hammered away at the same theme: The main responsibility for the death and destruction that has followed [ June 25] lies with Palestinian militants and leaders. The capture of a tank gunner as a prisoner of war was translated into an act of aggression, a kidnapping. Within a couple of weeks, the three leading Anglo Canadian dailies The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and the National Post had published the name of the captured (kidnapped) soldier more than 100 times, often alongside his age and other personal information. The Globes Shira Herzog, reflecting a broad journalistic consensus, explained that strong Israeli retaliation was necessary: Israel is a country that takes collective pride in the sanctity of every life, an ethos that comforts Israeli soldiers in combat who know that no human effort will be spared to rescue even a single one of them from enemy territory, dead or alive. As for the apparent contradiction given Israels approach to the lives of Palestinian prisoners, the issue could not be ignored entirely. On the thorny issue of child prisoners, the Globe referred readers to a front-page article on the topic it had published on June 19, titled Getting locked up to get away from it all. The piece argued that Palestinian children view imprisonment in Israeli jails as a dream vacation and are getting themselves imprisoned willfully as part of a Palestinian cultural trend. Regarding female prisoners, the paper published a June 27 report titled Palestinian female prisoners have blood on their hands. The title was based on a quote from the Israeli prison authority, and the article assured readers that those Palestinian women convicted in Israeli military courts were quite guilty and very bad. The Post, for its part, ran an editorial referring without distinction to all the Palestinians
4
whom the resistance was demanding be released children, women and administrative detainees alike as fanatics now justifiably languishing in Israeli prisons. Canadian media thus followed the Israeli lead, prizing the sanctity of every Israeli life while holding Palestinian lives in utter contempt.
dehumanIZIng palesTInIans
It is our duty to prevent any danger of losing a Jewish majority or creating an inseparable bi-national reality in the Land of Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, June 20, 2006 (Speech to the 35th Zionist Congress in Jerusalem)
As disturbing as it is, contempt for Palestinian life on the part of Israel and its supporters is unsurprising. It is, in fact, a necessary cornerstone of the ideology of political Zionism, which guides the Israeli political establishment and determines the core of Israeli policy. This policy is based on the determination to establish and maintain a state with a Jewish majority on lands that have long been home to a predominantly non-Jewish native population. Pursuit of this goal has involved expelling Palestinians from these lands, prohibiting their right to return to their homes, and encouraging large-scale Zionist settlement from abroad. This is a recipe for perpetual crisis and violence. Israeli forces effectively control all of historic (mandatory) Palestine, the territory stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. And despite Israels forced exile of millions of Palestinians from these lands, the present inhabitants of this territory are in the majority not Jewish. For Canadians to support Israel, they must adopt the Israeli perspective regarding the native population of this land, the view that the Palestinian population is an ethnic imbalance to be corrected, a problem to be dealt with, a demographic threat to a state which must be made Jewish at all costs. This thoroughly racist position frames mainstream Canadian debate. It is hardly worth quoting the National Post on this, given that the paper is operated by CanWest Global, a media conglomerate founded by two of Canadas leading Israel lobbyists (Israel Asper and
Gerry Schwartz). But the position holds firm on the liberal wing of the Canadian mainstream. Consider, for example, the work of Mitch Potter, the Toronto Stars leading Israel-Palestine pundit in recent weeks. Potter is aware that Gaza is not the planets most densely-populated area by accident, but largely as a result of the mass expulsion of Palestinians from the 78 percent of historic Palestine occupied by Zionist forces in 1948 (when Zionists took their first real stab at achieving a Jewish majority). Some 700,000 Palestinians were then expelled from the territory claimed as the State of Israel, forced into either neighboring countries or the 22 percent of Palestine still outside of Zionist control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). With respect to the Israeli settlement of Ashkelon, for example, Potter offers the following background: The modern city was formed by Jewish immigrants to Israel in the site of the Arab town of Al-Majdal, whose 11,000 residents were mostly driven into Gaza after the 1948 war. Potter does not even feel it necessary to explain why those driven out cannot return to their homes in accord with the basic, inalienable rights of refugees displaced during wartime. Instead, Potter automatically assumes the Israeli perspective. He correctly explains that the Israeli disengagement from Gaza was simply an outgrowth of Israels agenda of ethnic and national discrimination. For obvious reasons, Israel has been finding it difficult to deny the indigenous presence on the land it has conquered. This difficulty, Potter explained, was addressed through an effort to permanently exclude the Palestinian refugees of Gaza from dominant settler society: Analysts spoke of an emerging Israeli consensus that understood a bitter pill had to be swallowed once and for all in order for Israel to cure itself of the demographic realities of the burgeoning Palestinian birth rate. This is unabashed racism: the native majority population is described as a disease to be treated by state policy, though even conceding Palestinians a stretch of land to starve on is a bitter pill. None of the leading Canadian newspapers published a serious challenge to this racism. Instead, they repeatedly published the flimsy argument that such a challenge would itself be racist. In a rhetorical sleight of hand that has become quite familiar, commentators repeatedly suggested
that basic principles of human and national rights must be sacrificed on the altar of political Zionism, and that defending the rights of Palestinians (particularly those in exile) amounts to anti-Jewish racism. The point was put clearly in a July 3 column in The Globe and Mail: its anti-Semitic to call, as CUPE did (see The Bullet #22), for an unconditional right of return of all Palestinian refugees, since such a massive demographic change would mean the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. The Globe thus tells us that Palestines indigenous population is not only inferior and troublesome, but also oppressively racist by its very presence. From this perspective, contempt for Palestinian life comes all too naturally. On June 29, the National Post, ever a mouthpiece for Israeli diplomacy, addressed the issue through an interview with Israeli foreign and deputy prime minister Tzipi Livni. For Livni, as reporter Douglas Davis uncritically relayed to readers, international contempt for Palestinian life is still insufficient: She is particularly irritated by the equivalence given to the deaths of Palestinian and Israeli children ... Only when the world sends the right message to the terrorists will they understand that its not the same. Canadas leading journalists have already gotten the message. Consider, again, the work of Mitch Potter, who in his recent position as the Toronto Stars leading Israel-Palestine pundit is a canary in the mineshaft of liberal Canadian racism. On June 30, just one day after the publication of Livnis anti-equivalency plea, Potter made the following assertion: Despite five days of international headlines there has been but a single death that of kidnapped 18-year-old Israeli hitchhiker Eliyahu Asheri. Apparently, it was not worth counting the two Palestinian children, aged 2 and 17, who were killed on June 28 by an unexploded Israeli shell in the Gaza community of Khan Yunis (though this had even been reported in the New York Times). Nor was it worth retracting or correcting Potters statement in light of the Israeli militarys killing of a Palestinian in nearby Rafah at 2 a.m. on the morning of the 30th, or of another in the West Bank city of Nablus a little more than 3 hours later (already by 6:13am, Agence France Press had reported the Nablus killing). There were reports of other deaths during this period, which Potter or his editors could easily have
investigated if they took Palestinian life seriously. Evidently, they do not. As the Palestinian death toll mounted in the following week, denying the fatalities outright became untenable. Instead, Potter reduced Palestinian resistance to stubborn stupidity and described the fallen fighters as animals: Another batch of Palestinian militants drawn out lemming-like and falling by the dozen to highercalibre Israeli fire, just like their predecessors. [For Potter to call Palestinians lemmings is certainly ironic]. Falling, he might have added, to US weapons, with the support of Canadian foreign policy and its loyal pundits.
W hITeWashIng collecTIve punIshmenT
Hezbollah and Hamas ... triggered the current crisis by staging guerrilla raids into Israel Toronto Star, July 19 (reporter Less Whittington)
On July 12, Hizbullah, for decades the main southern Lebanese group in resistance to Israel, captured two Israeli soldiers and killed two more on the Israel-Lebanon border. That day, Israel not only killed 23 Palestinian civilians in Gaza, but also began to bomb Beirut. Israeli military action against Lebanon swiftly escalated. On July 15, for example, Reuters reported that Israel used loudspeakers to order Lebanese civilians to leave the village of Marwaheen. 20 people, including 15 children, got in a van to leave. Israel then bombed the van, killing them all. Of all of Israels international allies, including the United States, the Harper government was widely regarded as the most outspoken diplomatic supporter of escalating Israeli attacks. For Canadian media, fully accustomed to whitewashing Israeli atrocities, this was only appropriate. Massacres and the war crime of collective punishment were sanitized and reduced to offhand euphemisms: As in the Palestinian territories, the Globes Orly Halpern reported, Israel is ratcheting up the pressure on the civilian population in an effort to push the Lebanese to reject Hezbollah tactics.( July 14) And as in Palestinian territory, the attacks were a matter of defense. On July 15, the Globe editorialized: The kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers, in a small country that holds the life of every soldier dear, was a grievous provocation. Coming just

weeks after the seizing of another soldier by militants at the other end of the country, it looks like a coordinated campaign of intimidation. The imputed coordinated campaign of intimidation, which Globe editors disapprove of, is not to be confused with Israels ratcheting up the pressure on the civilian population, with which the Globe raises only strategic objections. As Israel continued to kill and starve Palestinians, and as the Lebanese death toll from Israeli massacres mounted into the hundreds (with several Canadians killed in the indiscriminate bombardment), Mitch Potter explained that Palestinians now shared blame for the violence with Hizbullah: The words Hamas and Hezbollah may sound equally foreboding to most Western ears. And the militant merger of the two has brought the Middle East to the brink of regional war. ( July 16) Even for the killing of Canadians, Israeli culpability was sidelined: Lebanon terror hits home, read a Toronto Star headline on the topic for July 17; Canadians were killed in crossfire of fight with Hezbollah, read another headline, this one from the July 18 issue of The Globe and Mail. In much of the coverage, it was as if Canadians were fleeing a natural disaster, not a campaign of collective punishment fully condoned by the Harper government. The reliance on Israeli sources became almost comical. By July 19, the Lebanese death count from Israeli massacres had reached 312, with more than 100,000 civilians displaced. As Canadians scrambled to leave Lebanon amidst the Israeli assault, the public relations line of the chief Israeli diplomatic to Canada received the widest possible circulation through a story printed by the Canadian Press. Drawing entirely from unsubstantiated claims, the piece ran with the headline Canadians fleeing Lebanon could be Hezbollah targets: Israeli ambassador. Israel has since pledged to continue its invasion of Lebanon for weeks to come, and both the Canadian government and Canadian media are lining up in support. The Toronto Stars Mitch Potter continues to get front-page attention for his articles, led by prominent cover references to Lebanese terror ( July 18) and the suggestion that Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah could be the next Osama bin Laden ( July 19). Potters journalism is shallow public relations, most recently for Israeli assassinaLabour for PaLestine
tion efforts against Nasrallah. Potter has described the leader as an eloquent, strategic figure with a mass base for regional resistance to Israel. From his vantage point in the corridors of power in Israel, Potter notes that the strategies for Israeli victory are converging on Nasrallahs head. Israel, while pledging a prolonged attack on Lebanon, has continued its atrocities in Gaza and escalated attacks on the West Bank, with incursions into the Palestinian towns of Nablus (where the Israeli military took over the municipality building, smashed cars and shot indiscriminately at residents houses), Tulkarem, Bethlehem and Jenin. The Harper governments nearly unconditional support for this Israeli aggression is scandalous, matched only by the medias support for Harper. On July 20, The Globe and Mails editors reaffirmed this. The title of the editorial in Canadas national newspaper, which praised Harper for his refreshing pro-Israel diplomacy, conveys the general tone of coverage: Harper is right on the Mideast.
mounTIng a challenge
There are indications that the Canadian population may be lagging behind the political establishment in its contempt for Palestinians. At the end of 2004, the Canada-Israel Committee (CIC) released polls which offer some hope in this regard. They found that prior to the recent intensification of support for Israel, official Canadian pro-Israel partisanship was opposed by majority public opinion. The polls found that the more Canadians learn about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the more they sympathize with the Palestinian cause. In recent months, this sympathy has found increasingly organized expression. The July, 2006 massive demonstrations in Montreal come on the heels of various important displays of regional solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. Prominent among these is the decision by the Ontario wing of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE-Ontario), Canadas largest union of public sector workers, to identify Israels regime of systematic ethnic and national discrimination as apartheid, and to join the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until apartheid is dismantled. This movement is continuing to spread, and is picking up momentum within the United Church and elsewhere.
As the Canadian government opts instead for open rejection of the rights of Palestinians (and Lebanese), Israel advocacy groups like the Canada-Israel Committee take comfort in support from the mainstream press. When the Harper government became the first of Israels allies to support renewed suffocation of the Palestinian economy (in March 2006), CIC communications director Paul Michaels commented happily that the decision was greeted positively on the editorial pages of most Canadian newspapers. Again in late June, Canadian media indifference to attacks on Palestinians occasioned the expression of satisfaction on the part of the CIC: While events on the ground included several Israeli air strikes in which civilians were injured or killed, this weeks media coverage was fairly light. With support from the government and the corporate press, Israels allies pretend to near universal Canadian representation. They are in turn able to depict Palestine solidarity as a rejection of the popular consensus: This week, a Globe article on July 8 declared, public opinion was inflamed again when, contrary to the outrage [against CUPE for its Palestine work], the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada commended CUPE Ontario for its stand, and echoed the unions call for a boycott of Israeli goods. There is no denying the real strength of Canadas institutional base of support for Israel. However, there is good reason to believe that this does not flow from popular opinion. Rather, it results from the eagerness of the Canadian government to harmonize its foreign policy with the US, the support of corporate Canada for this agenda, and the strength of Canadian Israel advocacy groups which draw support from corporate organization, the United States and Israel itself. Mainstream media are reflecting and shaping the pro-Israel consensus determined by these powerful interests. But they have yet to bring a real public consensus behind them. In this context, opportunities for a successful challenge to Canadian support for Israel remain very real. But it is only outside of the political establishment that this challenge can be built, and only through alternative information systems that it can be sustained. In any event, it is clear that while genuine awareness of the Israel-Palestine conflict may
translate into Palestine solidarity, the mainstream press, far from the solution, is quite near to the core of the problem.
addendum (may 2008)
This article was originally published by ZNet on July 21, 2006. Since then, Canadian officials and mainstream media alike have not lost the opportunity of intensifying Israeli assaults in Gaza to express continued contempt for Palestinians and their basic rights. 2008 opened with the siege on Gaza reaching increasingly genocidal proportions, the outcome of a policy of economic warfare (read: collective punishment) which was upheld by the Israeli Supreme Court. The extraordinary act of popular mobilization which saw Palestinians force open the Rafah crossing on January 23 found Canadian officials and most commentators as complicit as ever. On January 22, the Globe and Mail ran yet another editorial holding Palestinians responsible for the crimes committed against them, under the blunt title Blame it on Hamas. On January 24, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) voted to demand that Israel lift the blockade on Gaza. The resolution passed with 30 votes in favour, 15 abstentions, and Canada alone opposing it. In persistent support of the Harper governments deteriorating diplomacy, Canadian media have continued to line up behind Israel. The threat made against Palestinians on February 28 by Israeli deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai that they will bring upon themselves a bigger Shoah provoked no real criticism here, even though the Hebrew term Shoah refers almost exclusively to the Nazi genocide. CanWest media outlets (drawing from Reuters) referred to the strength of the language used by Vilnai, while other media chose to ignore the issue entirely. Over the next week, Israeli military operations killed 120 Palestinians in Gaza (34 of them children), and wounded 269. And at the March 6 meeting of the HRC, with little criticism at home, Canada was once again the only member state to vote against a resolution criticizing Israeli atrocities. While it is precisely the breadth of the dominant
Canadian consensus on this issue that is so disturbing, the recent conduct of the CanWest media empire requires special attention. This year, CanWest has been celebrating its renewed expansion, including the initiation of a national news service run from Ottawa. Meanwhile, it has continued to consolidate its hold in Western Canada, particularly in Vancouver, a city which has been described as Canadas media concentration capital. From this base, CanWest has recently launched a startling political attack on long-time respected community activist, particularly with respect to Palestinian solidarity, Mordecai Briemberg. Briemberg is presently facing a major lawsuit from CanWest. Formally, this relates to a parody of the local CanWest paper, the Vancouver Sun, which was circulated in satirical criticism of the papers skewed coverage of Israel/Palestine. The satirical publication included headlines such as Celebrating 40 Years of Civilizing the West Bank and Study Shows Truth Biased Against Israel. Encountering the publication at a local event, Briemberg was amused, picked up a few copies, and reportedly handed a few out. CanWest has now singled him out for retaliation through the courts. As the Seriously Free Speech Committee, organized in Briembergs defence, explains: While ostensibly centering on a commercial violation of trade mark, the charges read like a political attack. Including broad references to Briembergs alleged anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian media activities, CanWest submissions demand a sweeping variety of remedies including an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing injurious falsehoods by way of newspapers or other publications, on the internet or otherwise. This attack is symptomatic of an effort to prevent free and critical discussion of Israel/Palestine, and to maintain Canadian official and media practices which are both unpopular and unjust. Further details on this case are available at www.seriouslyfreespeech.ca. CanWest media outlets do enough political damage by the direct force of their skewed coverage. The additional effort to silence independent voices cannot be taken lightly.
68
The Canada Israel free trade Agreement (CIftA)

cIFTa By The numBers Israel-Canada: Bilateral Trade
1996 - 2005
1000
Millions of Canadian dollars ($C)
400
A COALITION AGAINST ISRAELI APARTHEID BRIEFING:
The Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA) was concluded on 1 January 1997, liberalizing trade arrangements between the two countries. Within the first three years of the agreement bilateral trade grew some 93 percent (according to figures provided by the Israeli Embassy in Canada). Currently the bilateral trade volume stands at roughly 1-billion Canadian dollars, with 2005 a record year in terms of bilateral trade between the two countries. It should be noted that Canada and Israel are relatively small trading partners in global terms given that trade between the twocountries accounts for less than one percent of their respective trade volumes. However, this relationship is expanding rapidly, particularly in a number of strategic sectors for both economies and states (for comparative data and total trade volumes see graphs below). While Canada concluded a Joint Canada-Palestinian Framework on Economic Cooperation and Trade with the Palestinian Authority in 1999, Israel ultimately controls the nature of this relationship. The agreements impact on growth and development in the Palestinian Bantustans has been minimal. Currently there is an almost complete freeze on Canadian economic activity in the West Bank and Gaza (with the exception of some minimal Canadian economic activity on Israeli settler-based infrastructure development, construction, and agricultural projects). According to DFAITs own website, the current political and security climate has all but eliminated bilateral commercial activity [between the PA and Canada] (this was written prior to Harpers aid cut). Major industries that account for most of the bilateral trade between Canada and Israel include:
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

163.2 180.4
Canadian exports Israeli exports

404.9
900
373.6 855 297.4 600 231.1 475.5
562.8
210.1
240
n/a
n/a
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Israel-Canada:Total Bilateral Trade

1996 - 2005
1000
1000 900 936.4 855 772.9 606 471.1 343.6
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

n/a n/a
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Sources: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT); Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics; Israel-Canada Chamber of Commere (ICCC)
69
diamonds, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, communications, plastics, machinery, electrical equipment and agricultural products. Electronics and machinery, in particular, account for roughly 25 to 30 percent of Israeli exports to Canada and roughly 40 to 50 percent of Canadian exports to Israel. While many BDS campaigns have focused on agriculture (including wines), it should be noted that trade in this sector accounts for only 5-10% of the bilateral trade volume between the two countries.
canada-Israel IndusTrIal research and developmenT FoundaTIon (cIIrdF)
cIFTa and The expansIon oF IsraelIcanadIan hIgh-Tech Trade
Israels global exports are mainly dominated by three key sectors: cut-diamonds, high-technology equipment and agricultural products; which are essentially the three key economic sectors that should be targeted in any BDS campaign. Major exports include machinery and equipment, software, cut diamonds, agricultural products, chemicals, textiles and apparel and the main consumers of Israeli goods are the United States, Belgium and Hong Kong. A key realm of expanding trade and investment under CIFTA is focused on high-tech. The Israeli economy has increasingly become dependent on its high-tech industry, which constitutes over 50 percent of Israeli exports (some put the figure closer to 60 percent). There are roughly 3000 high-tech firms operating in Israel and it has the second largest concentration of high-tech startups in the world (second only to Californias siliconvalley). Israels high-tech sector has benefited from close linkages to the Israeli and US military-industrial complexes, the influx of highly skilled Russian immigrants, liberalization of its economy, and increasing trade-agreements with partners in Europe and North America that opened unprecedented opportunities for the Israeli economy. However, this has also left the Israeli economy particularly vulnerable to global economic swings, according to an analysis of regional economic trends produced by DFAIT. This makes the Israeli high-tech sector an important target for any successful BDS campaign. Targeting Israeli R&D is particularly important because high-tech is seen as the main source of Israels economic growth-potential in the 21st century.
70
One of the key bodies for consolidating the growing partnership between Canada and Israel is CIIRDF, initiated by both governments in 1994 as a mechanism to provide seed-money for firms engaged in Israeli-Canadian R&D partnerships in cutting-edge technologies. Over the past three years CIIRDF has partnered 200 firms and has brought in considerable returns for both Israeli and Canadian companies. The CIIRDF is modeled on similar agreements that Israel has with a number of other countries, including: Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, HongKong, India, Ireland, Italy, South Korea, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, the UK and USA. It has also concluded sub-national agreements with the State of Maryland (USA), the State of Victoria (Australia) and the Province of Ontario. The CIIRDF was renewed for another 5 yearperiod during an April 2005 visit by then deputy premier and current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. During the visit Olmert also concluded a separate Ontario-Israel Science and Technology Agreement with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, thereby initiating an R&D exchange with the province under the auspices of CIIRDF. It should be noted that CIIRDF is now also exploring potential partnerships with R&D players in Newfoundland that are involved in developing oceanic and sea-based technologies. The success of CIIRDF has inspired the Canadian government to pursue an International Science and Technology Partnership Program starting in June 2005. This program seeks international partnerships with key emerging R&D players, including Brazil, China, Israel and India. Under the terms of this initiative Israeli firms are eligible for further funds from the Canadian government.
cIFTa and human rIghTs
The CIFTA agreement includes the liberalization of trade in a number of areas, including strategic military and dual-use sectors that include the high-tech industry, weapons manufacturing, explosives, nuclear technology, strategic raw materials and agricultural trade. Unfortunately, the CIFTA agreement includes no safe-guards to ensure
that human-rights provisions are followed and secured. In fact certain provisions in the agreement fly in the face of established international legal norms. Most controversial is Article 1.4 of the CIFTA agreement, which explicitly legitimates Israels occupation through its definition of territory in the following terms: with respect to Israel the territory where its customs laws are applied. This provision means that settlement-products are considered Israeli according to CIFTAs Rules of Origin regulations since Israeli customs laws are applied to all goods that originate in the Occupied Territories. This is in marked contradistinction to Israels trade agreement with the EU, which defines territory as the territory of the State of Israel. While the EUs trade-agreement with Israel is problematic as well it at least attempts to pay-lip service to standard conceptions of Israeli sovereignty. CIFTA makes no such distinction. The only provision of the agreement that might give the Canadian government some leverage on the human-rights front has been consistently ignored by successive governments in Ottawa. Article 10.2 of CIFTA states that: 1. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed: [] (c) to prevent either Party from taking action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security. Thus, while Canada has voted to censure Israeli behaviour 115 times between 2000 and 2005, bilateral trade and foreign direct investment between the two countries continued to expand during this period. Therefore, it can safely be said that CIFTAs very existence runs through its controversial definition of territory counter to the Canadian governments own obligations under the UN Charter (that require it to take steps to curtail Israeli obstructionism, end the occupation of Palestinian lands and allow the return of refugees). An important point for the BDS campaign is to point out the close relationship between the Israeli state, private sector development and the Israeli military industrial complex. Furthermore, many industries especially agriculture frequently have their physical plants and capital located on destroyed Palestinian villages, expropriated property or settler-colonial land-holdings in the Occupied Territories. Israeli agricultural industry depends
heavily on the on-going theft of Palestinian water supplies and arable lands in direct contradistinction to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel monopolizes roughly 75 percent of Palestinian water-resources for its own economic development. Furthermore, through research partnerships like CIIRDF, Israeli and Canadian firms are collaborating on defense-industrial projects, including the lethal Guardium Autonomous Security Vehicle designed for perimeter security applications in a number of contexts (among them Israels illegal apartheid Wall). Canadas growing relationship with Israel is part of a broader regional trend of expanding commercial and economic activity in the Middle East, with the aggressive pursuit of trade-partnerships and investment opportunities throughout the region. This has included growing economic activity with other human-rights abusing regimes in the region, including a substantial bilateral trade relationship with Saudi Arabia, unprecedented levels of economic activity between Canada and Egypt inspite of the escalating human-rights abuses of the Mubarak regime, and an expanding relationship with the illegitimate occupation regime in Iraq. In some ways, there is a direct correlation between mounting human-rights abuses and Canadian investment in many key economies throughout the Middle East region. Israel and CIFTA have been a key entry point. For Israel, the relationship with Canada has also involved more than just CIFTA and State-to-State relations. Israel has also sought to partner with provincial governments, including some major trade and investment deals with the Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec governments. Some of these agreements include partnerships in water-management technologies, resource extraction, high-tech R&D, as well as security related exchanges (including training exercises by the Israel Air Force at the Canadian Forces Base in Cold Lake, Alberta and high-ranking visits by Ontario chiefs of police and public security officials to Israel last year). These partnerships are occurring despite the on-going racial discrimination perpetrated by Israeli security forces against Palestinians residing in Israel as well as those residing in the Occupied Territories.
71
canada-Israel: ForeIgn dIrecT InvesTmenT (FdI)
While trade between Israel and Canada has reached significant proportions, the most rapid growth in economic relationships between the two countries over the past decade has been in the realm of foreign direct investment (FDI). According to figures obtained from CANSIM (Statistics Canadas socio-economic data-collection arm), total FDI in publicly-traded stocks between the two countries has grown eight-fold since the signing of CIFTA. Since 2000, these figures have remained in the 600 to 800 million dollar ranges. Furthermore, the total amount of FDI in privately owned stocks, real-estate, etc. is estimated to be in the range of three to four billion dollars. Two billion dollars of this number is accounted for by major Israeli real-estate firms that have invested in the Canadian market in recent years. Most of this investment has come from Gazit Global, Israels largest real-estate investment company. For a better picture of Gazit Globals holdings in southern Ontario, see: http://www.firstcapitalrealty.ca/ live/properties/PDFs/article e 1.pdf. While Canada has proven an attractive market for Israeli FDI including such major Israeli players as Amdocs Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI), etc. Canadian firms have also increased their own investments in the Israeli economy. This has particular been motivated by the desire to take advantage
of Israels increasingly integrated and high-tech economy and to take advantage of Israels freetrade agreements with the EU and local markets in Eastern Europe and Turkey. Major Canadian investors include Nortel, Aecon Group, Bombardier, and SNC-Lavalin whove increasingly been seeking investment opportunities in local infrastructure projects throughout Israel. While targeting CIFTA is important, we should also make sure to mention the increasing levels of FDI between the two countries.
Israel-canada chamBer oF commerce and IndusTry (Iccc)
The Tel-Aviv based ICCC promotes growing trade and is committed to expanding the relationship between the two countries. It is an important lynchpin in expanding foreign direct investment (FDI) levels between the two countries. Its Canadian counter-part was inaugurated in late May 2006 at the Israeli embassy in Ottawa and will be headquartered in Toronto (550 Eglinton Avenue West). The Interim President of the Canada-Israel Chamber of Commerce (CICC) is David A. Rubin and will continue to serve in this capacity until the fall. Key sponsors of the ICCC are: Nortel, Africa Israel Investments Inc., ORMAT, Danya Cebus, B.S.T. Development & Construction Co. Ltd., Gazit-Globe, Bombardier, Netposition, Goldhar & Co., Travelmania, IFAT, and the Ziv Group. It is said that even more Canadian players will be involved in the newly relaunched CICC.
Israel-Canada: Bilateral FDI

1996 - 2005
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
4 86 292 456 226
Israel-Canada:Total Bilateral FDI

1996 - 2005
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
90 748 780 705 624 610 677
Canadian FDI in Israel Israeli FDI in Canada

554
336 263 266
479 361 344 341
n/a
34
n/a
41
n/a
51
226
34
41
51
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Source: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)
72
section four
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

This section begins with the July 2005 call from over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations urging a worldwide campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel modeled on those used against South African apartheid.This section contains an explanation of what is meant by boycotts, divestment and sanctions, as well as a selected list of initiatives taken around the world. An excerpt from a book-length study by the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign examines the historical use of boycott as a weapon of oppressed peoples and situates the BDS call within broader Palestinian strategy. The articles by Virginia Tilley and Ed Janzen explore the necessity of BDS in further detail, and take up some of the arguments raised by the Israel lobby against this campaign. An article by Ken Luckhardt, former staff person for the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and official representative of the South African Congress of Trade Unions in Canada from 1980 to 1988, reflects on the experiences of the South African anti-apartheid struggle and the lessons for the campaign against Israeli apartheid. The two concluding articles further explore the role of BDS and the current state of the Palestinian solidarity movement.
Palestinian Civil Society Calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights
(9 July 2005) One year after the historic Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found Israels Wall built on occupied Palestinian territory to be illegal, Israel continues its construction of the colonial Wall with total disregard to the Courts decision. Thirty-eight years into Israels occupation of the Palestinian West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights, Israel continues to expand Jewish colonies. It has unilaterally annexed occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and is now de facto annexing large parts of the West Bank by means of the Wall. Israel is also preparing in the shadow of its planned redeployment from the Gaza Strip - to build and expand colonies in the West Bank. Fifty seven years after the state of Israel was built mainly on land ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian owners, a majority of Palestinians are refugees, most of whom are stateless. Moreover, Israels entrenched system of racial discrimination against its own Arab-Palestinian citizens remains intact. In light of Israels persistent violations of international law, and Given that, since 1948, hundreds of UN resolutions have condemned Israels colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal and called for immediate, adequate and effective remedies, and Given that all forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince or force Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine, and In view of the fact that people of conscience in the international community have historically shouldered the moral responsibility to fight injustice, as exemplified in the struggle to abolish apartheid in South Africa through diverse forms of boycott, divestment and sanctions; Inspired by the struggle of South Africans against apartheid and in the spirit of international solidarity, moral consistency and resistance to injustice and oppression, We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace. These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian peoples inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by: 1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
SECTION FOUR: Boycott, Divestment
and Sanctions
75
A frAMework for toDAYS AntI-APArtheID ACtIvISM

The following article is abridged from a book-length study by the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign. Please visit www.stopthewall.org to order the full book.
towards a Global Movement for Palestine
W haT are Bds?
A united Palestinian Call for a comprehensive BDS campaign against Israel emerged in 2005 and has been signed by over 170 Palestinian organizations. Importantly the signatories represent the three major components of the Palestinian people: the refugees in the diaspora, Palestinians under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the subjugated Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship. Their appeal for external support invoked specific solidarity strategies, all of which have historical significance in challenging injustice. Boycotts, at least by name, originate from the experiences of an Irish community in relation to an agent of a British landlord called Captain Boycott during the 19th century. As a means of expressing local grievances held against Boycott, the community successfully isolated the agent and refused to deal with him. After he returned to England, the story immortalized his last name and boycott has been used ever since to describe the collective power of a group to advance their goals via strategies of ostracism. History has shown how a variety of boycotts can successfully overcome forms of injustice. Today activists and groups have many forms of boycott at their disposal: Consumer/Payment Trade and Embargo Cultural Academic Secondary (surrogate) Sports Tourist
Increasingly in northern-based societies boycott refers to consumer rights and as an important tool of protest, exercised through not purchasing the products of an offending country, company or institution. In other parts of the world, boycotts remain one direct mechanism to ensure the attainment of basic rights and services (such as over rents, electricity and water). Boycott calls can also be made in situations where an oppressed populace looks for external support in their struggle to bring about social or political change. This becomes even more pertinent when the offender depends upon external backing in order to carry out and perpetuate crimes. Sanctions can be deployed across a wide array of institutions, taking in measures made by local community groups, to municipalities and city councils, to international forums and bodies. They are embodied in the actions taken to rebuke or inhibit the activities of the offender, in ways conducive to attaining change. Momentum for sanctions tends to begin at a grassroots level even if implementation often relies upon decision-making bodies which have some claim to representation. The phenomenon of peoples sanctions developed by the anti-apartheid movement referred to the success of campaigns that called for and succeeded in ensuring mechanisms of pressure were put upon South Africa. In some instances sanctions institutionalize the boycotts promoted by grassroots campaigns. At a higher level, sanctions are implemented by governments (local and national), associations such as the EU or NAM, or global agencies such as the UN or WTO. It can be argued they reinforce the strength and legitimacy of powerful actors, many of whom
76
and Sanctions
have questionable commitment to human rights and social justice. However, making demands on these bodies also ensures that powerful states and global institutions face up to their responsibilities regarding such rights and international law. Moreover, a strong movement advocating sanctions can stimulate consciousness-raising amongst the public and adds an important element of moral pressure to campaign work generally, even if the sanctions themselves are not always attained. In recent years sanctions campaigns have emphasized various forms: Diplomatic Military/Arms Economic/Trade Oil/Energy Divestment was first used in the 1950s as a way to describe the stripping away of economic investments as a mechanism of protest and pressure. Today it is referred to as the process in which an individual, group or institution disposes of its stocks and shares within a business or holding. In solidarity work, divestment is similar to sanctions in that it can rely upon securing certain actions by others (in this instance, shareholders or companies withdrawing investments). However, a variety of institutions exist in which individuals and constituents hold considerable stake and influence (churches, unions, universities, pension funds), and which hold great potential for BDS campaigns.
legacIes oF Bds: acTIvIsm and aparTheId souTh aFrIca
South African history has enshrined boycotts, divestment and sanctions as invaluable tools in combating oppression and injustice. How they were deployed can yield important lessons for a BDS movement today, and are also relevant given the parallels drawn between Israel and apartheid South Africa in public opinion and academia. However, their effectiveness and contribution to the South African struggle requires consideration if current campaigns are to emulate previous solidarity. While resistance to white rule preceded the struggle against the apartheid system introduced from 1948, it was not until the late 1950s that appeals for BDS emerged and solidarity campaigns were launched.
Early studies recognized that the South African economy was vulnerable to external pressure and campaigns were organized around imposing sanctions on the regime (oil, diplomatic and military), as well as developing boycotts against key South African exports (agriculture, coal). In other parts of the world, especially in states directly opposed to recognition of racist South Africa, boycotts were promoted in sports, the arts and culture. In Europe in 1963, Danish dockers set an important precedent when they refused to unload a shipment of South African goods. Dockers in Sweden also refused to unload the cargo and later that year governing parties in Scandinavia jointly proposed a resolution advocating economic sanctions on South Africa. It revealed how initiatives taken on the ground could pressure or influence those with political power. By the 1970s activists advocated that apartheid could not survive without the external assistance which was fuelling the economy and entrenching a system of racial capital based upon the exploitation of black labour. Divestment activity emerged on US university and college campuses and in city and town councils, targeting any companies with links to the regime. Typically solidarity was driven by committed grassroots activists. The Connecticut Anti-Apartheid Committee (CAAC) formed in August 1978 had a nucleus of between six and ten people on the steering committee for the first 18 months. They undertook a wide range of educational and support-building activities: distributing fliers and pamphlets, getting endorsements from community leaders, showing films, sponsoring conferences and organizing speaking engagements with black South Africans and Americans with knowledge on southern Africa, submitting newspaper articles, holding cultural and social events, doing research on Connecticut investments and obtaining support and endorsements from organizations around the state. Out of the relatively small group emerged a lobby powerful enough to influence wider changes at a state level, symptomatic of the success of outreach programmes across the country. The NAM and the UN became more vocal in their condemnation of the regime and South Africa emerged in the 1980s as an increasingly isolated pariah state. NevertheSECTION FOUR: Boycott, Divestment
and Sanctions
77
less, western governments and companies maintained their economic ties with the regime. Western leaders claimed that apartheid could be reformed, while banks with strong interests in South Africa (such as Barclays) stated that economic ties and investment were the only viable instruments of peaceful change. However, South Africas internal resistance rejected anything other than overthrowing apartheid and by the mid-1980s brought the country to a point where many predicted the regimes imminent collapse. Internal uprising was complemented by BDS measures in the rest of the world which in turn catalyzed popular rhetorical support for the liberation struggle. Trade unions, church groups, pension fund holders, town councils and universities were all instrumental in this process and their actions spurred a greater collapse of confidence in the regime at another level, taking in banks and governments. By 1985 the South African economy was in serious difficulty, owing western financial institutions $24 billion, $14 billion of which was shortterm debt. The declaration of a state of emergency in June 1985 added to the pressure and American banks refused to rollover loans and demanded their capital back. European banks followed suit. As the Rand plummeted on foreign exchange markets, South Africa responded by freezing all repayment, followed on 1 September with the declaration of a debt standstill. A year later in November, after a decade of highprofile campaigning, Barclays announced its withdrawal from South Africa, shattering the myths it propagated of economic ties bringing peaceful change. Sports, cultural and tourist boycotts were equally important in breaking the morale of the regime and its backers, helping to facilitate the climate in which domestic South African capital considered the possible transition to black majority rule. There are numerous contesting accounts of the final demise of the regime, but most are unanimous that BDS strategies in one shape or form contributed in the struggle to end apartheid. However, the regime did to some extent, consolidate its financial position after 1985, leading many to value the sustained symbolic and psychological impact of BDS
78
initiatives just as much as the economic impact they achieved. Upon closer inspection, even some the most celebrated victories of divestment revealed continued trade and links below the surface. At least 46 US firms that had pulled out of South Africa from 1984 were later found to be licensing technology to former subsidiaries or held distribution and franchise agreements with South African firms. One Israeli subsidiary of US corporation Motorola, continued to do business in South Africa after the parent company had officially pulled out and gained considerable praise for divesting its holdings. While solidarity work in support of South Africans created a legacy for BDS campaigns, it is important to highlight that BDS formed one means of challenging injustices. It assisted rather than directed the liberation struggle, which was led first and foremost by the internal resistance.
challenges ahead
Successful BDS campaigns are built upon diligent and detailed research which can guide the efforts of activists in their outreach work, and in which the dissemination of such information to a network of solidarity movements is vital. Challenging and opposing Israeli crimes requires the presentation of clear and easily identifiable means by which people get involved in campaign work. Outlining the nature of the Israeli policies and the overall Israeli economy presents opportunities for BDS work to develop effective mechanisms of pressure. In 1949 fruit juices and citrus fruits accounted for 67% of Israeli exports. Almost sixty years on, the Israeli economy has been totally transformed from settler based agrarian production to a high-tech, highly diversified economy. Today, Israel is viewed as the technological and industrial powerhouse of the Middle East, and as one of the most attractive markets for (and which is dependent upon) foreign investments. Israel has strong export markets which are reliant upon four interlinked core sectors: technology, Research and Development (R&D), diamonds, and arms. In addition, it has received approximately $3 billion in aid per year from the US since the mid1980s. Israel began to implement policies of trade liberalization in the early 1990s, setting the country on a trajectory of privatization which continues toLabour for PaLestine
and Sanctions
day. Yet the economy retains a duality in state/private activities, ensuring apartheid and occupation policies go hand-in-hand with neoliberalism. Many business and economic practices are integrated into Israeli security objectives and are further interwoven into wider circles of capital and investment. Israel in 2007 has a highly diversified economy, driven via transnational accumulation and particularly sensitive to the fusion of local capital into the global circuits of ownership. While it shares R&D projects with a host of countries, the US is the major player in buying into the Israeli economy. Israeli investments are also strong in the US and Western Europe, but are increasingly represented in the former Eastern bloc and Africa, specifically in construction, diamonds and arms. Israeli export markets (bar diamonds) are predominantly dependent upon the EU and the US (33 percent and 28 percent respectively). However, emerging markets in Asia and the Middle East have meant that trade in these regions has steadily increased over the last decade. Lacking in many natural resources, Israel is dependent upon imports of petroleum, coal, food and raw materials. It also relies on other countries (notably the US and Germany) for the transfer of advanced military equipment which it is unable to manufacture internally. In terms of imports, figures show (excluding diamonds) that 56.5 percent arrive from the EU or US which means (in light of the African diamond market) that Israel is dependent upon a significant proportion of imports from the rest of the world. Israels energy imports (various types of crude oil) have risen by 42% over the past four years, from $3.1 to $4.5 billion, of which Russia accounted for a third.
hoW can a BoycoTT Work? - TacklIng key economIc secTors
Israel enjoys the highest concentration of high-tech companies outside of the Silicon Valley. Robert Greifeld President & CEO NASDAQ 2004 Almost every major multinational is involved or linked into the Israeli economy which has evolved from settler-based agriculture to a centre of transnational investment in high-tech industries, manufacturing and research. Israeli technology finds its
way into the everyday consumer goods manufactured in countries across the world and the deep integration of the economy into high-tech markets causes obvious problems in sourcing Israeli components and products. The high-tech sector currently accounts for 33 percent of Israels total exports. Over the last two decades, a significant transformation has shifted the emphasis of business activity into the field of computers, software and electronics; communications; biotechnology; medical, agricultural and scientific equipment; and advanced weapon and military defence systems. Technology plays a significant part in production across nearly all sectors of the economy. The Ministry of Finance has suggested that after Sweden, Israel spends more on the R&D sector than any other country. However the government keeps aspects of R&D programs confidential, specifically the military sector which has been estimated to usurp two percent of GDP. Israels overall R&D expenditure is thus considered to be 4.3 percent of GDP 85 percent above the OECD average, and 30 percent more than Sweden. It has various incentives in place to boost the R&D sector, which grew out of the Oslo agreements as a financial and cooperative enticement from the global community for the peace process. Yet despite the transnational nature of the economy, various opportunities exist for extending an effective boycott. Israeli companies can lose their competitive edge in a climate where divestment initiatives target selective companies holding key or symbolic interests in the economy. Campaigns against the R&D sector and the joint programmes held with over 20 different countries form another target for BDS work in ending the external cooperation and funding for Israeli growth and production. Moreover, technology is built into a handful of core economic industries which form viable targets for BDS campaigns. One of these central markets is that of diamond processing. Israeli diamonds Diamonds make up a massive 28 percent of Israeli exports and Tel Aviv is the hub of a trade with extensive moral and ethical implications. In
and Sanctions
79
2005 Israels diamond industry ended the year with growth in all areas of activity, maintaining its position as the world manufacturing and trading centre for polished and rough diamonds. Diamond exports broke, for the first time, the $10 billion threshold. Net polished exports in 2005 rose 5.8% to reach an all time high of $6.707 billion, compared to $6.337 billion in 2004. Rough diamond exports from Israel rose 20.5% in 2005 to reach $3.517 billion, up from $2.920 billion in 2004. Israel processes about 75 percent of the annual production of higher-value gem diamonds, and plays a key role in the overall control of the trade. Moreover, Israeli dealers have been linked to conflict or blood diamonds in Africa where virtually all the unpolished diamonds that enter Israel are sourced. The industry makes up a vast contribution to the economy and is interwoven into the oppression not just of Palestinians, but also of the Africans who own the raw resources. Like South African coal and food exports were key characteristics of the export economy and later subject to embargo and boycott, Israeli diamonds have the potential to be the focus of an international campaign. Arms Exports Sustaining Occupation, Fuelling Conflict Israel is one of the worlds major exporters of military equipment. By the 1980s Israel joined the top ten countries of the world in military production and by 2000 officially recorded exports reached a new high of over $2.49 billion. In 2004, official figures showed Israels sale of armaments to developing countries amounted to US $1.2 billion. However, unreported clandestine deals could mean that this figure does not represent the full extent of arms exports. Israel has a long history of aggressively marketing weapons in the rest of the world, as well arming a variety of dictators, juntas, factions in civil wars and regimes well known for systematic human rights abuses. Israel has also taken on the mantle of a major subcontractor and broker for US arms to the developing world. Only around a quarter of current Israeli production in the military sector is produced for the internal market. Consequently, Israel, contrary to the norm of large arms produc80
ing countries (such as the US), gears production towards external markets to bring in vital cash flows for the economy, perpetuating conflicts, mini arms races and violence.
conclusIon - W here nexT In BuIldIng unITy For a gloBal movemenT?
Historically, boycotts show that in order to be effective the public cannot be overwhelmed with targets and goals. Developing strategies with specific campaigns can bring in the wider audience and conditions needed for a broad antiapartheid movement to take root. Campaigns on the arms trade and diamonds have been highlighted, but other forms of boycott can have both symbolic and economic value. The question of BDS should not solely be judged on its economic efficacy, but rather the role it plays in educating people about the real ties that exist between their every day existence and Israeli apartheid and occupation. Produce symbolic for its origins in the Israeli economy (e.g. fruit, cut flowers) form a useful basis for BDS work alongside the boycott of goods which make a fundamental contribution to the economy (e.g. technology deployed in cell phones). Campaigns around soft targets that centre upon the most abhorrent and illegal Israeli practices are useful starting points for BDS work. Consumer boycotts and divestment campaigns can look to be more encompassing once BDS work is accepted and established as the prime focus of solidarity work. However, symbolic and start up boycott campaigns on economic production directly linked to the occupation of the 1967 areas, cannot alone challenge the main facets of Israeli occupation and apartheid. Companies with obvious complicity in Israeli apartheid such as Caterpillar and Veolia form the starting point for a broader campaign as much as companies supporting the Israeli military or the continued discrimination against Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. That investment in Israel represents investment in a system of occupation, injustice and apartheid must be reinforced as the basis for campaigning. Boycott and buycott lists will need to be managed in democratic and transparent ways in a solidarity movement which can develop the mechanisms by which to coordinate serious research in the sourcLabour for PaLestine
and Sanctions
ing of Israeli production and in its outreach work. Institutions and groups could pass boycott resolutions, which include mandates to investigate the levels of trade pursued with Israel and share such data amongst activists on a global level. Campaigners can as well target a series of intergovernmental bodies from the UN to the NAM and their monitoring and reporting commissions to take up the valuable task of research. Calling those bodies to responsibility leads the way into sanctions campaigns within these organizations. Sanctions campaigns can look to annul Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and other preferential agreements with Israel, sever diplomatic ties and maintain arms embargoes, until more comprehensive measures can be put in place. As we see from the South African anti-apartheid movement, peoples sanctions can look to local councils and other community decision-making bodies to adopt progressive legislation and positions. Aside from forms of economic boycott, a variety of other initiatives are at the disposal of campaigners, and have already emerged in academia, sports, culture and trade unionism. These can have a powerful impact on Israeli society as a whole, sending a clear message that occupation and apartheid will no longer be accepted in the rest of the world. Yet while Palestine BDS work has already become established by various campaigns, the lack of a common discourse or framework has left initiatives isolated or in the pursuit of different aims. Binding efforts together requires common reference to the 2005 Boycott Call and a realization amongst solidarity movements that BDS is meant as a strategy of support for all Palestinians struggling for liberation. For those movements unable or unwilling to
adopt this position, particularly in the US and parts of Europe, their contribution can assist BDS initiatives but should not come at the expense of subverting the calls and appeals of Palestinians. The opening of new historical narratives, finally revealing the full subjugation and horror experienced by the Palestinian people as a result of Zionism, is making new waves in global discourse and perceptions. Part of this is the achievement of solidarity work which has already influenced popular opinion as well as the opinion makers. Personalities such as UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights John Dugard and even ex-US president Jimmy Carter, are clearly raising the profile and discussion of Israeli apartheid and hence the need for a strong and effective BDS campaign. However, BDS campaigners need to be aware of the constraints or underlying interests of opinion makers and ensure that communication with Palestine remains the pillar on which global solidarity needs to be anchored. BDS styled campaigns can achieve great heights in taking this further and in working for a lasting and genuine peace, but should be aware that external groups are not the ones to define the political and social objectives of the work. In maintaining an awareness of these dynamics, continual dialogue and communication is necessary from civil society and movements in Palestine with the rest of the world. BDS movements, no matter how powerful, cannot and should not look to replace the resistance and struggle of those people they are trying to support. They can, under the right circumstances, make a positive and proactive contribution in supporting the attainment of human rights for others and for securing long-term justice.
and Sanctions
81
A Selected List of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Initiatives

27 November 2006: The Dutch ASN Bank becomes
the first bank in the world to divest from companies benefiting from Israeli occupation. ASN announces that it will divest from Veolia, a company that actively supports Israeli colonization, and all companies that benefit from Israels occupation of Palestinian territory.
19 November 2006: The Norwegian Civil Service
8 July 2006: The Indonesian womens tennis team,
scheduled to play a Fed Cup play-off in Israel on the 15th and 16th of July, pull out of the tie in an act of solidarity with Palestinians. The Indonesian Tennis Federation (PELTI) and government officials from the foreign and sports ministries announce a boycott of the games due to the military aggression and massacres of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
29 May 2006: Members of Britains largest college
Union, one of the largest unions of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, votes in favor of a boycott of Israel in the form of an arms embargo.
26 August 2006: Ken Loach, the acclaimed British
director and winner of the 2006 Palme dOr at the Cannes Film Festival, declared in a personal statement his support of the call by Palestinian filmmakers, artists and others to boycott state sponsored Israeli cultural institutions and urge[s] others to join their campaign.
19 August 2006: Connex Ireland, a company operat-
ing railway lines, cancels plans to train Israeli engineers and drivers in Ireland. The Israeli trainees were to operate a tramline built between Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
5 August 2006: The Irish Joint Committee on Foreign
teachers union agreed on a boycott of Israel over what members called apartheid policies toward Palestinians, saying union members will refuse to cooperate with Israeli academics who do not disassociate themselves from such policies. The 69,000member National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) debated the proposal for the boycott at its annual conference in the northern English city of Blackpool. Two parts of the motion passed with a show of hands while a third went to a vote. Under the boycott, union members also will not submit articles to Israeli research papers.
27 May 2006: CUPE Ontario declares that it will
Affairs calls on the Irish government to push for sanctions against Israel in the EU on the grounds of Israels human rights abuses.
2 August 2006: Organizers of the Edinburgh Film
Festival cancel sponsorship of the festival by the Israeli embassy and return all funds received from the Israeli government.
1 August 2006: The administrative council of the
Support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian peoples inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law including the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
14 May 2006: Green Party of the United States calls
Greek Cinematography Center (GCC) withdraws all Greek movies they planned to participate in Haifas Cinema Festival in October 2006.
82
for 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.
and Sanctions
7 February 2006: The Church of Englands general
synod including the Archbishop of Canterbury voted to disinvest church funds from companies profiting from Israels occupation of Palestine.
16 December 2005: The regional council of the Sr-
Trndelag 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. Sr-Trndelag has a population of 270,000 out of Norways 4.6 million. Trondheim, Norways third largest city, forms part of the region and will participate in the boycott initiative. Sr-
Trndelag was the first Norwegian county to boycott South Africa. Upholding this good tradition, the County council, again the first in the country, has decided to boycott Israeli goods, by not buying Israeli goods and by organizing awareness-raising efforts.
8 December 2005: The Socialist Left Party, a member
of the center-left Norwegian government launched a solidarity campaign for Palestine beginning in the New Year. The campaign focuses on a consumer boycott of Israeli products and will push for a ban on any arms trade between the Norwegian government and the Israeli regime.
FAQ about Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Why are Palestinians calling for a global campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions? People throughout the world have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinian people and this has been reflected in countless UN resolutions. The International Court of Justice at the Hague has confirmed that the apartheid Wall, Israels occupation and colonial settler policy are illegal. israel has refused to comply with all these resolutions and rulings. Only the concerted international pressure which the BDS campaign promotes can ensure that the Israeli occupation and apartheid are brought to an end and that the right of return of Palestinian refugees is respected. The main goals of this call are: What are boycotts, divestment and sanctions? Boycotts, divestment and sanctions are three distinct strategies that share the same motivation and goals: to end israeli occupation and apartheid and to ensure that the right of return of Palestinian refugees is respected. Boycott campaigns are the most immediate form of action. in boycott actions individuals choose not to buy products from the specified country in this case apartheid Israel. These decisions and the information needed to make them help raise awareness in the streets, in the shops and in our homes. A boycott is the instrument of those without formal power ordinary people who use their power as consumers to oppose injustice. Divestment campaigns are coordinated efforts by organizations, groups and movements to pressure enterprises and institutions to divest from Israeli companies or companies which support Israeli occupation and apartheid. For example, student organizations and unions at a university could pressure the administration to withdraw its investment in Israeli companies and companies which directly or indirectly support the occupation and apartheid. Sanctions are a means to enforce international law by cutting off trade and investment with the specific country. Sanctions were applied to South Africa and helped end the apartheid regime there they came out of a longstanding grassroots campaign of boycotts and divestment.
To reveal to the world the nature of Israels occupation and apartheid regime To give human rights a real value by making Israel accountable and forcing it to pay a price for its crimes to reveal and highlight the responsibility of the international community in supporting Israeli crimes and violations of human rights and international law Above all, to end international support for Israeli occupation and apartheid since these cannot survive without external assistance.
and Sanctions
83
28 November 2005: The city council of Arbizu, in the
Basque country, declared they will: call for boycott, will support and execute it. The boycott consists of a consumer boycott of Israeli products as well as a boycott of all the firms, Basque or not, which make business with Israel, and non-cooperation with Israeli initiatives on the field of culture, education and sports.
8 August 2005: The Presbyterian Church (USA) pub-
13 July 2005: The UN International Conference of
Civil Society for Peace in the Middle East unanimously adopted the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions.
March 2005: The World Council of Churches urged
lished its divestment list that singles out Caterpillar, ITT Industries, Motorola, and United Technologies as concrete measures towards economic pressure against Apartheid Israel and its accomplices.
27 July 2005: A resolution passed by the Anglican
Consultative Council in Nottingham, England, urged Anglican churches around the world to divest from companies whose activities profit from the occupation of Palestine.
its member churches give serious consideration to pulling investments out of Israel and endorsed the 2004 decision by the Presbyterian Church of the United States to seek phased selective divestment from Israel. The Central Committee takes note of the current action by the Presbyterian Church (USA) which has initiated a process of phased, selective divestment from multinational corporations involved in the occupation. This action is commendable in both method and manner, uses criteria rooted in faith, and calls members to do the things that make for peace (Luke 19:42), the WCC said
More FAQ about Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

What are the different types of boycott? Cultural Boycotts are a means for individuals and cultural institutions to express their opposition to israeli occupation and apartheid by refusing to perform in Israel, refusing to issue copyright and distribution rights to Israeli institutions and companies and opposing israeli participation in cultural initiatives. ordinary people can participate by encouraging individual artists and cultural institutions to boycott the apartheid state and by boycotting those who collaborate with Israel. Travel Boycotts individuals and institutions can refuse to travel to israel for business or to use israeli travel services: refuse to fly with El Al, refuse to take holidays in Israel, oppose institutions, organizations and corporations having conferences, conventions, workshops or training courses in Israel. Sports Boycotts the sporting community, federations, athletes and sports fans can express their opposition to Israeli crimes and call for an end to israeli occupation and apartheid by contesting Israeli participation in international and bi-national competition. Academic Boycotts - call upon students and scholars to stop cooperation with their Israeli counterparts and to demand the same from their universities and academic institutions. Israeli scholars and academic institutions are not only instrumental in perpetuating and teaching racist and colonial israeli ideologies, they are also sites where the theories, plans, and projects of Israeli occupation and apartheid are elaborated and intellectually supported. Consumer Boycotts are based on the individual consumers freedom to refuse to purchase Israeli products or services. This choice can range from individuals informing a storeowner or manager that they are not buying the israeli goods on offer and the reasons for their decision, to an organized campaign involving a large number of individuals and organizations working together to achieve specific objectives. Individual Investment Boycott many Canadians have self-directed pension funds or RRSPs. Individuals can check the annual report of their RRSP mutual funds or pensions to see if they have investments in Israel such as State of Israel Bonds or in companies such as Caterpillar which are implicated in the destruction of Palestinian homes and if so to inform the fund manager that you intend to switch funds and the reasons for doing this.
84
and Sanctions
The Case for Boycotting Israel

By Virginia Tilley, CounterPunch, August 5/6, 2006
OHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA. It is finally time. After years of internal arguments, confusion, and dithering, the time has come for a fullfledged international boycott of Israel. Good cause for a boycott has, of course, been in place for decades, as a raft of initiatives already attests. But Israels war crimes are now so shocking, its extremism so clear, the suffering so great, the UN so helpless, and the international communitys need to contain Israels behavior so urgent and compelling, that the time for global action has matured. A coordinated movement of divestment, sanctions, and boycotts against Israel must convene to contain not only Israels aggressive acts and crimes against humanitarian law but also, as in South Africa, its founding racist logics that inspired and still drive the entire Palestinian problem. That second goal of the boycott campaign is indeed the primary one. Calls for a boycott have long cited specific crimes: Israels continual attacks on Palestinian civilians; its casual disdain for the Palestinian civilian lives accidentally destroyed in its assassinations and bombings; its deliberate ruin of the Palestinians economic and social conditions; its continuing annexation and dismemberment of Palestinian land; its torture of prisoners; its contempt for UN resolutions and international law; and especially, its refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. But the boycott cannot target these practices alone. It must target their ideological source. The true offence to the international community is the racist motivation for these practices, which violates fundamental values and norms of the post-
World War II order. That racial ideology isnt subtle or obscure. Mr. Olmert himself has repeatedly thumped the public podium about the demographic threat facing Israel: the threat that too many non-Jews will the horror someday become citizens of Israel. It is the demographic threat that, in Israeli doctrine, justifies sealing off the West Bank and Gaza Strip as open-air prisons for millions of people whose only real crime is that they are not Jewish. It is the demographic threat, not security (Mr. Olmert has clarified), that requires the dreadful Wall to separate Arab and Jewish communities, now juxtaposed in a fragmented landscape, who might otherwise mingle. Demographic threat is the most disgustingly racist phrase still openly deployed in international parlance. It has been mysteriously tolerated by a perplexed international community. But it can be tolerated no longer. Zionist fear of the demographic threat launched the expulsion of the indigenous Arab population in 1948 and 1967, created and perpetuates Israels occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, inspires its terrible human rights abuses against Palestinians, spins into regional unrest like the 1982 attack on Lebanon (that gave rise to Hezbollah), and continues to drive Israeli militarism and aggression. This open official racism and its attendant violence casts Israel into the ranks of pariah states, of which South Africa was the former banner emblem. In both countries, racist nationalist logic tormented and humiliated the native people. It also regularly spilled over to destabilize their surrounding regions (choc-a-block with demographic threats), leading
Virginia Tilley is a professor of political science, a US citizen working in South Africa, and author of The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock (University of Michigan Press and Manchester University Press, 2005). She can be reached at tilley@hws.edutilley@hws.edu.
and Sanctions
85
both regimes to cruel and reckless attacks. Driven by a sense of perennial victimhood, they assumed the moral authority to crush the native hordes that threatened to dilute the organic Afrikaner/Jewish nations and the white/western civilization they believed they so nobly represented. A humiliated white society in South Africa finally gave that myth up. Israel still clings to it. It has now brought Israel to pulverize Lebanon, trying to eliminate Hezbollah and, perhaps, to clear the way for an attack on Iran. Peace offers from the entire Arab world are cast aside like so much garbage. Yet again, the Middle East is plunged into chaos and turmoil, because a normal existence peace, full democracy is anathema to a regime that must see and treat its neighbors as an existential threat in order to justify the rejectionism that preserves its ethnic/racial character and enables its continuing annexations of land. Why has this outrageously racist doctrine survived so long, rewarded by billions of dollars in US aid every year? We know the reasons. For too many Westerners, Israels Jewish character conflates with the Holocaust legacy to make intuitive sense of Israels claim to be under continual assault. Deep-seated Judeo-Christian bias against Islam demonizes Israels mostly Muslim victims. European racist prejudice against Arabs (brownskinned natives) casts their material dispossession as less humanly significant. Naive Christian visions of the Holy Land naturalize Jewish governance in biblical landscapes. Idiot Christian evangelistic notions of the Rapture and the End Times posit Jewish governance as essential to the return of the Messiah and the final Millennium (even though, in that repellent narrative, Jews will roast afterwards). All those notions and prejudices, long confounding international action, must now be set aside. The raw logic of Israels distorted self-image and racist doctrines is expressed beyond confusion by the now-stark reality: the moonscape rubble of oncelovely Lebanese villages; a million desperate people trying to survive Israeli aerial attacks as they carry children and wheel disabled grandparents down cratered roads; the limp bodies of children pulled from the dusty basements of crushed buildings. This is the reality of Israels national doctrine, the
86
direct outcome of its racist worldview. It is endangering everyone, and it must stop.
desIgnIng The campaIgn
Much debate has circulated about a boycott campaign, but hitherto it has not moved beyond some ardent but isolated groups. Efforts have stalled on the usual difficult questions: e.g., whether a boycott is morally compulsory to reject Israels rampant human rights violations or would impede vital engagement with Israeli forums, or whether principled defense of international law must be tempered by (bogus) calls for balance. Especially, recent debate has foundered on calls for an academic boycott. Concerns here are reasonable, if rather narrow. Universities offer vital connections and arenas for collaboration, debate, and new thinking. Without such forums and their intellectual exchange, some argue, work toward a different future is arguably impeded. But this argument has exploded along with the southern Lebanese villages, as Israeli university faculties roundly endorse the present war. As Ilan Papp has repeatedly argued, Israels universities are not forums for enlightened thought. They are crucibles of reproduction for racist Zionist logics and practice, monitoring and filtering admissible ideas. They produce the lawyers who defend the occupation regime and run its kangaroo courts; the civil planners and engineers who design and build the settlements on Palestinian land; the economists and financiers who design and implement the grants that subsidize those settlements; the geologists who facilitate seizure of Palestinian aquifers; the doctors who treat the tortured so that they can be tortured again; the historians and sociologists who make sense of a national society while preserving official lies about its own past; and the poets, playwrights, and novelists who compose the nationalist opus that glorifies and makes (internally, at least) moralistic sense of it all. Those of us who have met with Jewish Israeli academics in Israeli universities find the vast majority of them, including well-meaning liberals, operating in a strange and unique bubble of enabling fictions. Most of them know nothing about Palestinian life, culture, or experience. They know strangely little about the occupation and its realities, which are
and Sanctions
crushing people just over the next hill. They have absorbed simplistic notions about rejectionist Arafat, terrorist Hamas, and urbane Abbas. In this special insulated world of illusions, they say nonsense things about unreal factors and fictionalized events. Trying to make sense of their assumptions is no more productive that conversing about the Middle East with the Bush administrations neo-cons, who also live in a strange bubble of ignorance and fantasy. Aside from a few brave and beleaguered souls, this is the world of Israels universities. It will not change until it has to when the conditions of its self-reproduction are impaired and its self-deceptions too glaring.
The real goal: changIng mInds
The universities represent and reproduce the bubble world of the Israeli Jewish population as a whole. And no people abandons its bubble willingly. In South Africa, Afrikaners clung to their own bubble their self-exonerating myths about history, civilization, and race until they were forced by external sanctions and the collapsing national economy to rethink those myths. Their resistance to doing so, while racist, was not purely vicious. Many kind and well-meaning Afrikaners simply didnt believe they had to rethink ideas that manifested to them as givens and that shaped their reality. (One valued Afrikaner friend here recalls her life during apartheid South Africa as being like The Truman Show, a film in which a man unknowingly grows up in a television show, set in an artificial dome world designed to look like a small town.) When their reality fell apart, suddenly no one would admit to ever having believed or supported it. The Zionist worldview is an even more complete system. All historical and geographic details are provided to create a total mythical world, in which Jews have rights to the land and Palestinians have none. It is a fully realized construction, like those Hebraized maps carefully drawn by the Zionist movement in the 1930s to erase the ancient Arabic landscape and substitute Hebrew biblical references. It is also very resilient. The new historians have exposed the cherished national historical narrative of 1948 and 1967 as a load of fictions, but the same fictions are still reproduced by state agencies to assure Israeli and diaspora Jews of their innoLabour for PaLestine
cence and the righteousness of their cause. The vast majority of Israelis therefore remain comfortable in their Truman Show and even see any external pressure or criticism as substantiating it. We need no more graphic evidence of that campaigns success than the overwhelming support among Israeli Jews for the present catastrophic assault on Lebanon, reflecting their sincere beliefs that nuclear-power Israel is actually under existential threat by a guerrilla group lobbing katyushas across the border. Staggering to observers, that belief is both sobering and instructive. To force people steeped in such a worldview to rethink their notions, their historical myths, and their own best interests requires two efforts: 1) Serious external pressure: here, a full boycott that undermines Israels capacity to sustain the economic standards its citizens and corporations expect, and which they associate with their own progressive self-image; and 2) Clear and unwavering commitment to the boycotts goal, which in Israel as in South Africa must be full equality, dignity, safety, and welfare of everyone in the land, including Palestinians, whose ancestral culture arose there, and the Jewish population, which has built a national society there. That combination is essential. Nothing else will work. Diplomacy, threats, pleading, the peace process, mediation, all will be useless until external pressure brings Israels entire Jewish population to undertake the very difficult task of rethinking their world. This pressure requires the full range of boycotts, sanctions, and divestment that the world can employ. (South African intellectual Steven Friedman has observed wryly that the way to bring down any established settler-colonial regime is to make it choose between profits and identity. Profits, he says, will win every time.)
W haT To TargeT
Fortunately, from the South African experience, we know how to go forward, and strategies are proliferating. The basic methods of an international boycott campaign are familiar. First, each person works in his or her own immediate orbit. People might urge divestment from companies investing in Israel by their colleges and universities, corporations, clubs, and churches. Boycott any sports event
and Sanctions
87
that hosts an Israeli team, and work with planners to exclude them. Participate in, and visit, no Israeli cultural events films, plays, music, art exhibits. Avoid collaborating with Israeli professional colleagues, except on anti-racist activism. Dont invite any Israeli academic or writer to contribute to any conference or research and dont attend their panels or buy their books, unless their work is engaged directly in anti-racist activism. Dont visit Israel except for purposes of anti-racist activism. Buy nothing made in Israel: start looking at labels on olive oil, oranges, and clothing. Tell people what you are doing and why. Set up discussion groups everywhere to explain why. For ideas and allies, try Googling the boycott Israel and sanctions against Israel campaigns springing up around the world. Know those allies, like the major churches, and tell people about them. For more ideas, read about the history of the boycott of South Africa. Second, dont be confused by liberal Zionist alternatives that argue against a boycott in favor of dialogue. If we can draw any conclusion from the last half-century, it is that, without the boycott, dialogue will go nowhere. And dont be confused by liberal-Zionist arguments that Israel will allow Palestinians a state if they only do this or that. Israel is already the only sovereign power in Palestine: what fragments are left to Palestinians cannot make a state. The question now is not whether there is one state, but what kind of state it comprises. The present version is apartheid, and it must change. However difficult to achieve, and however frightening to Jewish Israelis, the only just and stable solution is full democracy. Third, be prepared for the boycotts opposition, which will be much louder, more vicious, and more dangerous than it was in the boycott of South Africa. Read and assemble solid documentable facts. Support each other loudly and publicly against the inevitable charges of anti-Semitism. And support your media against the same charges. Write to news media and explain just who the Israel media teams actually are. Most pro-Israeli activism draws directly from the Israeli governments propaganda outreach programs. Spotlight this fact. Team up to counter their pressure on newspapers, radio stations, and television news forums. Dont let them
88
capture or intimidate public debate. By insisting loudly (and it must be sincere) that the goal is the full equality of dignity and rights of everyone in Israel-Palestine, including the millions of Jewish citizens of Israel, demolish their specious claims of anti-Semitism. Finally, hold true to the principles that drive the boycotts mission. Dont tolerate the slightest whiff of anti-Semitism in your own group or movement. Anti-Jewish racists are certainly out there, and they are attracted to these campaigns like roaches. They will distract and absorb your energies, while undermining, degrading, and destroying the boycott movement. Some are Zionist plants, who will do so deliberately. If you cant change their minds (and dont spend much time trying, because they will use your efforts to drain your time and distract your energies), denounce them, expel them, ignore them, have no truck with them. They are the enemy of a peaceful future, not its allies part of the problem, not the solution.
BoycoTT The hegemon
This is the moment to turn international pressure on the complicit US, too. Its impossible, today, to exert an effective boycott on the United States, as its products are far too ubiquitous in our lives. But its quick and easy to launch a boycott of emblematic US products, upsetting its major corporations. Its especially easy to boycott the great global consumables, like Coca-Cola, MacDonalds, Burger King, and KFC, whose leverage has brought anti-democratic pressures on governments the world over. (Through ugly monopoly practices, Coke is a nasty player in developing countries anyway: see, for example, http://www.killercoke.org/ Think youll miss these foods too much? Is consuming something else for a while too much of a sacrifice, given what is happening to people in Lebanon? And think of the local products youll be supporting! (And how healthy you will get). In the US, the impact of these measures may be small. But in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and the Arab and Muslim worlds, boycotting these famous brands can gain national scope and the impact on corporate profits will be enormous. Never underestimate the power of US corporations to leverage US foreign policy. They are the one force
and Sanctions
that consistently does so. But always, always, remember the goal and vision. Anger and hatred, arising from the Lebanon debacle, must be channelled not into retaliation and vengeance but into principled action. Armed struggle against occupation remains legitimate and, if properly handled (no killing of civilians), is a key tool. But the goal of all efforts, of every stamp, must
be to secure security for everyone, toward building a new peaceful future. Its very hard, in the midst of our moral outrage, to stay on the high road. That challenge is, however, well-known to human rights campaigns as it is to all three monotheistic faiths. It is what Islam knows as the great jihad the struggle of the heart. It must remain the guiding torch of this effort, which we must defend together.
Collective punishment, Nablus, August 2006. Photo: pockets23
and Sanctions
89
unpacking the Israeli Lobbys Arguments

Ed Janzen answers some of the common arguments used against divestment. First published in Canadian Dimension Magazine, September/October 2006 Issue (excerpt).
IN DEFENSE OF DIVESTMENT
Divestment singles out democratic Israel while ignoring the many nations that have no respect for human rights. Darn right were singling out Israel just like we singled out South Africa. If anyone knows how to run an anti-apartheid campaign without choosing a clear objective, please let us know. Actually, Israel singles out itself actively and often. Israelis and Israel apologists never hesitate to proclaim how across the whole Middle East Israel is the only democracy (false), the only Middle Eastern country where women can vote (false) and that values human rights (patently absurd!). Jewish citizenship in Israel is widely considered a birthright and right-wing religious Israelis (many secular Israelis, too) will tell you that Israels claim to the land of Palestine stems from God Himself. Clearly, Israelis and their advocates have a pretty high opinion of themselves. As for Israeli democracy, instead of asking Jewish Israelis about it, ask Palestinian Israelis about one fifth of Israels population. Palestinian citizens of Israel can run for public office but only if they support Israels Jewish state character. Jewish Knesset members routinely insult and humiliate Palestinian members and frequently call for the forced expulsion of Palestinian citizens from Israel. Palestinian Israelis are also denied the lions share of social services and property rights. In Israels 2002 budget, for example, the housing ministry allocates about $30 per person in Israeli Arab communities over against $3,100 per person in Jewish communities. Another example: Rather than buying land, Israelis lease it from the Jewish National Fund. Jews may buy land on 99-year leases; Pal90
estinian Israelis can only get leases of a few years and in general Palestinians experience a continuous struggle against a regime of permits and licenses that are often next to impossible to obtain. Related, the United Nations Committee Against Torture has repeatedly condemned Israel for its continued use of torture against Palestinian civilians. Amnesty International notes that, Israel is the only country on earth where torture and ill treatment are legally sanctioned. And over 9,000 Palestinians are being held as political prisoners by Israel, including 400 children. One could go on and on with such examples without even mentioning the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere who are not citizens of Israel. At press time, the kind of Israeli democracy available to these Palestinians is visible on the international news pretty much every night. Israel and South Africa are apples and oranges. No one claims that the situation in Israel is exactly the same as that in South Africa. Indeed, certain former victims of South African apartheid no less distinguished than Bishop Desmond Tutu have suggested that the situation of Palestinians under Israeli occupation is if anything far worse than that of South African Blacks under apartheid. Further, back when South Africa was a global pariah under general embargo, Israel was one of the South African apartheid regimes biggest supporters. Israel helped South Africa develop its nuclear program and to circumvent the international embargo.
and Sanctions
Wouldnt promoting dialogue be a more productive approach to building peace in the region? Wouldnt it? Israel has always tried to paint itself as a benevolent, do-gooder peace partner locked into a cycle of failed negotiations with pig-headed, trigger-happy Arabs who never fail to miss an opportunity for peace. Yet, a more measured look at the facts will reveal that Israel has never shown interest in diplomacy and negotiations with its Arab neighbours. Throughout its history, Israel has treated the Palestinians with unwavering contempt. Israels first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, proposed solving the Palestinian problem by turning Palestinians into human dust. Israels unilateral disengagement from Gaza last year offers another example of Israeli unwillingness to deal with Arabs. In the words of Dov Weisglass, Ariel Sharons senior political advisor: The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians. Do people truly eager to negotiate peace and friendship normally employ terms used in embalming and taxidermy? At press time, the Israeli forces are out on killing sprees in both Gaza and Lebanon supposedly because of three captured Israeli soldiers. Were Israel truly concerned about recovering its soldiers alive, it could have attempted to negotiate their release. To date, no such move toward dialogue has been attempted.
Advocating for divestment and boycott is anti-semitic. Anti-semitism accusations against critics of Israel are a form of rhetorical shrapnel: theyre ugly, cheap to produce and can knock an opponents forces out of play. The shrapnel analogy obtains further: If your opponents are firing it at you, chances are youre flying near the target. In this calculus, the most educated, informed, eloquent critics of Israel must also be the most virulent, irrational anti-semites. The problem of anti-semitism is real, but the problem is far more limited in scope than the never-ending fear mongering perpetuated by Israel apologists would allow. Every two or three years, Bnai Brith and the Anti-Defamation League publish reports warning of some new anti-semitism in Europe and North America even as Jews on both continents enjoy greater material wealth, privilege, prestige and social integration relative to most other ethnic groups. Anti-semitism of the Left is an even wilder assertion, and those who fling it never seem able to accompany their accusations with explanations. Confronted with the fact that a large fraction of Palestine liberation activists are of Jewish descent, the Israel apologists invented the concept of self-hating Jews. Its anti-semitism for Jews! I told you this was pitiful stuff. With an arrogant, unilateralist Israel on the rampage, and the worlds most powerful nations unprepared to act, the situation in Palestine isnt pretty. It therefore falls to us, the people of the world, to compel Israel to walk in accordance with international law and respect for human rights. Through the DBS campaign, we can bring the necessary pressure to bear. With apologies to Margaret Thatcher: There is no alternative.
and Sanctions
91
By Ken Luckhardt, Relay, November-December 2006, at http://www.socialistproject.ca/relay Nothing To Apartheid! Nothing From Apartheid! Israeli Apartheid, that is! to mind. Exploited and unfree Palestinian labour, displaced to postage stamp plots on the occupiers terms, all enforced by a ruthless military regime supported by western capitalist allies. All this adds up pretty clearly to Israeli apartheid in the opinion of more and more people the world over. When Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Willie Mandisha of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, all deem the Israeli oppression of Palestinian people as the equivalent of apartheid, the social and political conclusions should be clear. There is a need to move from these political conclusions to a different set of questions: Is there the political will to mount an international sanctions, boycott and divestment campaign against Israeli apartheid equal to that mounted against apartheid South Africa? Are the personal commitments and resources sufficient to sustain such a campaign (keeping in mind that the call for sanctions against South Africa came at least 25 years before the international momentum reached a critical threshold?) Will it not be even more difficult to tackle Israeli apartheid given the massive propaganda machine that the Zionist state has created with the support of virtually all rulings classes and political elites in the developed capitalist world? In addressing these questions, there may be a benefit in looking back to some of the methods that worked and lessons that were learned in the international campaigns against apartheid South Africa. The focus here is on the political work done primarily within the Canadian labour movement by the South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU) Solidarity Committee (Canada).
Lessons from the South African experience
UNIONISTS AND THE ANTI-APARTHEID STRUGGLE
he first two slogans will remind many of the mobilization for international sanctions against apartheid South Africa some twenty years ago. Some activists focused on consumer actions in the marketplace, some took action at the point of production and/or at the site of a service sector connection with South Africa, while bank and pension fund divestments were the institutional targets for others. The ultimate victory of the international sanctions campaigns was grounded in the fundamental principles of, and support for, a non-racial democracy and anti-imperialism. No victory would have been possible of course without the courage and determination of black South Africans and their allies inside the walls of apartheid to end this crime against humanity. There is a tendency to think of apartheid as unique to South Africa. Apartheid could be narrowly defined, both descriptively and geographically, to make that a truism. Such a definition however would be an unproductive exercise and a political mistake. To begin with, it would fail to acknowledge that the basic pillars of apartheid oppression in South Africa (the Pass Laws and the bantustans) were modeled in large part on the Canadian colonial laws and institutions (the Indian Act and reservation system) imposed on First Nations. Such a narrow definition of apartheid would also limit our analysis of equally oppressive crime(s) against humanity which are rooted in similar structures of oppression. The Zionist state of Israels treatment of the Palestinian people comes readily
Ken Luckhardt is a long-time international solidarity activist and is recently-retired from the CAW national staff. From 1980-88, he chaired the SACTU Solidarity Committee, the official representative of SACTU in Canada at that time.
92
and Sanctions
a polITIcal call From The oppressed people Themselves
polITIcal educaTIon In unIons
The African National Congress (ANC), SACTU and other member organizations of the Congress Alliance all called for the total isolation of South Africa in the early l960s. The Congress Alliance represented the overwhelming majority of the oppressed majority Africans, so-called Indian South Africans, coloureds and also progressive white South Africans. Its call for international sanctions was crucial to the international communitys ability to act. As SACTU said at its l963 Conference: To our friends abroad we say that trafficking in the fruits of apartheid can never be in the interests of the workers who suffer under apartheid. And the ANC stated repeatedly: What we in the ANC want to see is what the people of South Africa want to see. We demand total isolation of the racist regime no investment and withdrawal of existing investment. The UN General Assembly echoed the call for international isolation of South Africa as early as l962. But Western governments representing capitalist investment and trade with South Africa consistently blocked such a program. There were, of course, other voices from within South Africa who did not endorse international sanctions. The regime and its allies made sure that those voices were heard. The racist authorities also made it more difficult for comrades operating openly in South Africa by threatening a five-year prison sentence for those persons endorsing the sanctions campaign. In the case of Israeli apartheid, it will be very important to listen carefully to the voices of the Palestinians. Who are their legitimate representatives, given the external and internal limits of the Palestinian Authority? This is crucial, as there will no doubt be prominent Palestinians (perhaps even some trade union leaders) who will publicly oppose international sanctions. It will be difficult task for the international community to decide how best to support the collective interests of the Palestinian people in a context of divided voices. When such legitimate calls for sanctions are made such as those coming from a vast number of Palestinian civil society and union organizations in the last year they must be widely communicated with potential supporters the world over.
There is no short cut to effective political work, and the roots of that work begin with an educational program that systematically takes the fundamental message to friends (and foes) alike. The SACTU Solidarity Committee (Canada) contacted some 10,000 Canadian trade unionists per year at the peak of its work. This was done at union conventions, union schools and, most importantly, at local union meetings. Taking the political message to a local union meeting, with all the diversity of opinion found in any group of rank-and-file workers, must be the goal of any serious international solidarity campaign. Design the educational programming to cover the basic points of information that defines the struggle, in this case the Israeli oppression of and dispossession of Palestinian rights. Use facts and figures, use maps, use important quotes from the oppressed and their leaders (and the oppressor and their leaders). Parallels and analogies with South African apartheid are obviously appropriate in this case. List those unions and other organizations that have taken progressive positions, such as the resolution of CUPE-Ontario), and the actions that have been generated by those resolutions. Develop a strategy that engages both national/ regional union leaderships on the one hand with local union leaders and rank-and-file activists on the other. Get national union leaderships to endorse the work in writing and follow up on that letter with requests to address local union meetings and educationals. There is no other way to establish an informed solidarity but to invest long hours and countless meetings with small groups of workers and their families.
research For campaIgns
Boycotts, divestment, and sanctions campaigns require extensive research on the many ties that bind the Canadian and Israeli political economies. Incorrect or incomplete information will guarantee campaigns that lack credibility. Put more positively, a research strategy that seeks to pinpoint foreign investment, trade, military complicity and other forms of Canadian state support, from Canadian government international agencies like Canadian International Development Agency, the Export
and Sanctions
93
Development Corporation, and the Canadian embassy, is essential to the integrity and ultimate success of the campaign. In the early l980s, the SACTU Solidarity Committee (SSC) first documented Canadian foreign investment in South Africa and then turned its attention to the bilateral trade, including military collaboration in violation of the UN Sanctions against the arms trade with apartheid South Africa. The SSC obtained from Statistics Canada a more detailed report on the regular trade flows than would normally be published. This information was then the basis for an analysis of the two-way trade which appeared in a popular publication, Trafficking in Apartheid: The Case for Canadian Sanctions Against Apartheid South Africa. That booklet became the
standard reference for virtually all trade-related sanctions issues in Canada. The same kind of publication on Canadian-Israeli trade is necessary and will prove invaluable for the current campaign. The data collected by SSC was crucial to put the lie to pro-apartheid lobbyists who argued that trade sanctions would cause significant job losses in Canada. Our research demonstrated that some three hundred jobs or so might have been at risk, and that would be the case only if producers made no effort to find alternative markets for those Canadian exports. That was an unlikely scenario. Without the research data, it would have been a sterile and unproductive shouting match between pro- and anti-apartheid forces on the impact of sanctions on workers in Canada.
Business Elites and the Anti-Apartheid Struggle

For those too young to have been involved in the anti- apartheid struggle, there is probably an assumption that it was easier to fight the institutionalized racism of apartheid South African than Israeli apartheid now. It is suggested that South African apartheid was so obviously repugnant to the sensibilities of most of humanity, whereas the ethnic-cleansing and apartheid of Israel (the only democracy in the region according to its defenders words also often used for the old Pretoria regime as well) is not. However, we need to remember how much support apartheid South Africa received from the Canadian media, political and business elites in the early days of the struggle. Here is a verbatim text from a front-page article appearing in The Globe and Mail on April 21, 1964. The Weston family, of course, still remains an important part of the ruling elites in Canada, and Hilary Weston was not too long ago Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario. ...Weston Firmly Backs Apartheid System W. Garfield Weston, chairman of the board of George Weston Ltd., of Toronto, yesterday gave a strong defense of south african apartheid. He was speaking at the companys annual meeting about his recent visit to that country on behalf of Associated British Foods Ltd. Mr. Weston is chairman of the board of the British company. The policy of apartheid is much misunderstood, he said. africans are treated and receive a better standard of free health care than is provided canadians.
94
He added that it would be ridiculous and wrong to try and force south africa to give the vote to these millions of colored people, whose ethics are not ours, and whose Christian morals are completely absent. (George C. Metcalf, the companys president and managing director, was one of three men given a human relations award in l962 by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews.) The food chain millionaire, who spent three months touring South Africa, said the Government builds houses for its native population as good as any public housing in britain. And believe me, he added, every black pickaninny or black mammy can call on the Government for solution to any social problem. Mr. Weston said colored South Africans possessed a mentality fundamentally different from that of whites. He cited a meeting he had with two natives, and said: The truth is that these Basuto boys can work two or three months, then go back into the jungle and buy another wife. He added: It was the whites who built those wonderful cities. Mr. Weston urged Canadians to go to live in South Africa for proof that news reports are exaggerated. In our company weve got white boys, Bantu boys and Basuto boys all working together, and never once did I see a scowl on any one of their faces, he said.
and Sanctions
With the publicly-available data on CanadaSouth Africa economic relations in hand, the exciting challenge then became that of finding the actual companies and locations involved. Here is where organized workers became political actors as workplace researchers. Work routines are often boring. But they are less so if there is a chance to answer critical political questions: for example, is the pulp company that we work for one that is exporting pulp to South Africa (the second largest Canadian export to South Africa in the 1980s)? We were eventually successful in locating the companies exporting the pulp to South Africa after both pulp and paper unions in BC, despite organizational and political differences between them, agreed to tour SSC staff through every pulp town in the province in l985. Similarly, workers in other manufacturing settings found creative ways to check invoices and bills of lading to determine if there were South African connections. Dockworkers and marine workers in the Vancouver port were the most important worker-researchers as they committed to regularly report the contents of ships plying to and from Canada and South Africa. Long before the days of personal computers, the data was forwarded to the SSC office in Toronto in a timely and predictable manner. After years of conducting the educational sessions and trade research, a Week of Sanctions Actions Against South Africa was launched in l986. The week saw many postal workers refuse to handle mail destined to of coming from South Africa; telephone operators refuse to place phone calls between Canada and South Africa; airline reservation agents refuse to facilitate ticketing for those violating the call to boycott personal travel to South Africa; and, most courageously, dockworkers refuse for up to four days to offload cargo from one of the Nedlloyd ships that had arrived in the Vancouver port. Despite threats of discipline and dismissals, not a single worker lost employment or wages as a result of these collective actions at the point of production. With the success of these actions, even the Mulroney Government was forced to slowly accede to the momentum for isolating the racist regime. But remember, that was almost a quarter of a century after the initial UN call for sanctions, boycotts and divestment campaigns.
It was not only the SACTU Committee that worked on the sanctions, divestment and boycott campaigns. Anti-apartheid organizations included most of the faith community and its Task Force on Churches and Corporate Responsibility, the Toronto Committee for the Liberation of Southern African (TCLSAC), Canadians Concerned about South Africa (CCSA), and many other non-governmental organizations such as Oxfam-Canada, CUSO and many others. They carried out similar initiatives throughout Canadian civil society.
lessons learned
Working to defeat apartheid South Africa was a necessary struggle, and a tremendous honour and experience to be part of it. Working to defeat Israeli apartheid for the national self-determination of the Palestinian peoples is no different There will be moments of political highs as more and more organizations join the campaign and more and more individuals make personal commitments. But there will also be moments of political disappointments along the way. Prominent individuals who would be expected to be on side will occasionally not be there: perhaps rhetorically and sometimes not even that. An example from the past illustrates some of the dilemmas and issues. The call from the ANC and the international sanctions campaign was for an individual travel ban to South Africa as a further means of isolating the racist regime. But a few anti-apartheid activists self-defined themselves as the exception and believed they knew more than the movement. Their travel to South Africa predictably confused the issues and the business media made much of it. It was necessary to voice the criticism and just keep doing the work. This will also be the case in the struggle to free Palestine, when even some union leaders are on the wrong side of the issue. The commitment to systematic political work to defeat Israeli apartheid needs to be taken on with the same determination that defined the global anti-apartheid movement in the struggle for a nonracial democracy in South Africa. Freedom for the Palestinian people combined with social justice and peace in the region is the only real option. This is a key struggle for international solidarity activists in the Canadian trade union movement today.
and Sanctions
95
LeSSonS for the new AntI-APArtheID MoveMent

By Salim Vally Left Turn Issue # 28: We Cultivate Hope: 60 Years of Palestinian Struggle, April 2008
from South Africa to Palestine
here were moments in modern history when particular struggles galvanized millions around the world to act in solidarity. This occurred during the Spanish Civil War, the struggle of the Vietnamese Photo by Muthana Al-Qadi against US imperialism, and the liberation struggles of Southern Africa. The time has now come for progressive humanity to cut through the obfuscations, canards, and calumnies and meaningfully support the resistance of the Palestinian people. For sixty years Palestinians have alerted us to one outrage after another, injustices piled upon injustices without the commensurate scale of global solidarity required to make a significant difference to their lives. It is now in our hands to change this unconscionable situation. Not by appealing to the ruling classes of the world and their institutions who remain-in the face of abundant evidence-unmoved, callous, and hypocritical. They in fact sustain and provide succor to Israeli apartheid and terror.
solIdarITy
It is rather by applying the most potent weapon we have learnt to rely on, forged and steeled through the tried and tested struggles of workers and oppressed people spanning time and space: solidarity. International solidarity in the words of the late Mozambican revolutionary, Samora Machel, is
not an act of charity but an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains toward the same objectives. The Palestinian struggle does not only exert a visceral tug on many around the world. A reading of imperialism shows that Apartheid Israel is needed as a fundamentalist and militarized warrior state both to quell the undefeated and unbowed Palestinians and also as a rapid response fount of reaction in concert with despotic Arab regimes to do the Empires bidding in the Middle East and beyond. Over the years the latter included support for the mass terror waged against the people of Central and South America and facilitating the evasion of international sanctions against South Africa. Besides providing a ready supply of mercenaries to terrorize a populace-whether in Guatemala, Iraq, or New Orleans-Israel also lends its expertise of collective punishment and mass terror. We have to recognize that the foundation of the Israeli economy is founded on the special, political, and military role which Zionism fulfils for Western imperialism. While playing its role to ensure that the region is safe for oil companies it has also carved out a niche market producing high-tech security essential for the day-to-day functioning of the New Imperialism.
Salim Vally is a visiting scholar at York University. He returns to South Africa in August where he holds the post of Senior Researcher/Lecturer at the University of Witwatersrand. He was an executive member of the black c onsciousness South African Students Movement until it was banned in 1977 after the murder of Steve Biko. He was a founding member Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and is a member of various social movements including the Anti-Privatization Forum, the Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Anti-War C oalition.
96
and Sanctions
unresTraIned hand
The unrestrained hand of US imperialism and its support for barbarism whether in Iraq or Palestine should hasten our actions. In Gaza, eighty percent of the population lives in poverty and close to a million people have no access to fresh water, electricity, and other essential services. Close to 70,000 workers have lost their jobs in the eight months of the siege of Gaza. The killing of Palestinians continues on a ferocious basis-daily missiles are launched from American-made helicopters and fighter jets. These cowardly war crimes are carried out with impunity-no longer even meriting a mention in the mainstream press. On February 16, eight members of the Al Fayeq family in Bureij Refugee Camp were martyred by missiles. Forty others, mostly women and children, were injured, some critically. Ten days before this atrocity the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) killed seven Palestinians. The targets included an agricultural school in Beit Hanoun where a teacher, Hani Shabaan Naim, was killed and many of his students seriously injured. In the space of scarcely a month and a half, one hundred and eight Palestinians, largely civilians, have been martyred. In light of these killings and the slow starvation of the inhabitants of Gaza as well as the frequent incursions into the West Bank, the obsequiousness of the Abbas regime becomes all the more abject. The fanfare and din surrounding the Annapolis breakthrough is one more hoax designed to assuage the conscience and lull the international community to slumber. Karma Nabulsi wrote at the time of this spectacle: The tarnished trickery of those tired catchphrases last chance for peace, painful compromises, moderates against extremists is now worn so thin a child would not be deceived. It is a meeting to legitimize the status quo. There is an intense defeatism pervading the mainstream media and tired politicians without valor everywhere. But there is a hopeful reality: many ordinary citizens all over the world have not given up and the Palestinians have not given up on themselves.
tance and the conflict between Fatah and Hamas and without discouraging criticism, we outside the Israeli dungeons and the rubble of the Israeli war machine have a responsibility to support the Palestinian struggle. This can be accomplished through the boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign (BDS) proposed by a wide array of Palestinian unions, academic, student and political organizations representing the vast majority of Palestinians. Other writings have justified the need for this strategy so it will suffice here to quote Virginia Tilley, a woman from the US who in the aftermath of Israels cluster bombing of Lebanon wrote: It is finally time. After years of internal arguments, confusion, and dithering, the time has come for a full-fledged international boycott of Israel. Good cause for a boycott has, of course, been in place for decades, as a raft of initiatives already attests. But Israels war crimes are now so shocking, its extremism so clear, the suffering so great, the UN so helpless, and the international communitys need to contain Israels behavior so urgent and compelling, that the time for global action has matured. A coordinated movement of divestment, sanctions, and boycotts against Israel must convene to contain not only Israels aggressive acts and crimes against humanitarian law but also, as in South Africa, its founding racist logics that inspired and still drive the entire Palestinian problem.
souTh aFrIcan lessons
Bds
Palestinians remain steadfast and courageous. Despite the complexities of the Palestinian resisLabour for PaLestine
It will be helpful to draw activists attention to some of the egregious lessons from the campaign to isolate Apartheid South Africa bearing in mind Amilcar Cabrals tell no lies, claim no easy victories advice to revolutionaries. Firstly, it took a few decades of hard work before the boycott campaign made an impact. Despite the impression given by many governments, unions, and faith-based groups that they supported the isolation of the apartheid state from the outset. This is just not true. Dick Cheney, as a senator during the South African anti-apartheid struggle, called for the continued incarceration of Nelson Mandela because he was a terrorist. Both Reagan and Thatcher gave support to Apartheid South Africa. Multilateral organizations and unions were hesitant for many years to fully support the antiSECTION FOUR: Boycott, Divestment
and Sanctions
97
apartheid campaign. The anti-apartheid movement was formed in 1959 and the first significant breakthrough came in 1963 when Danish dock workers refused to off-load South African goods. The rise of the anti-apartheid movement must be seen in the general effervescence of liberation struggles and social movements in the turbulent 1960s/early 1970s and in the context where there was-whatever our opinion was of the USSR and its motivation-a counterweight to US hegemony. This together with the viciousness of the pro-Israeli lobby, its opportunistic reference to the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, and the post 9/11 climate of fear, silencing dissent, and Islamophobia makes the task of isolating apartheid Israel more difficult. Despite these seemingly daunting obstacles the movement for BDS against Israel is gaining momentum and has already made some significant gains-gains which wouldve been difficult to imagine just a few years ago.
name and shame
Secondly, arguments opposed to the boycott of South Africa claiming it would harm black South Africans and highlighting the need for dialogue and constructive engagement were easily rebuffed by lucid and knowledgeable counter-arguments. The South African regime, like the Israeli regime today, used homeland leaders and an assortment of collaborators to argue this case for them. But careful research played an important role in exposing the economic, cultural, and armaments trade links with South Africa to make our actions more effective as well as to name and shame those who benefited from the apartheid regime. Thirdly, sectarianism is a danger that we must be vigilant about and principled unity must be our lodestar. Some in the anti-apartheid movement favored supporting only one liberation movement as the authentic voice of the oppressed in South Africa. They also aspired to work largely with respectable organizations, governments, and multilateral organizations and shunned the much harder and patient linking of struggles with grassroots organizations.
with struggles against racism and in support of the indigenous people and workers in North America that I have witnessed must be lauded. For example, at the Six Nations reclamation site in Canada the Palestinian flag flew alongside the Six Nations flag because Palestinian activists made sure to be there to support this key indigenous rights struggle. Similarly, connections have been made between the right of return of refugees from New Orleans and Palestine. Finally, the sanctions campaign in South Africa did produce gatekeepers, sectarians, and commissars but they were also challenged. Writing in support of the academic boycott a colleague, Shireen Hassim, does not gloss over the problems: Some academics who actively opposed apartheid had invitations to international conferences withdrawn; it was not always possible to target the supporters of the apartheid regime; and South African academics understanding of global issues was certainly weakened. It is in the nature of such weapons that they are double-edged. But, as part of a battery of sanctions, the academic boycott undoubtedly had an impact on both the apartheid state and on white academics and university administrations. The [academic] boycott, together with the more successful sports boycott and economic divestment campaigns, helped to strengthen the struggle of black people for justice. University administrations could no longer hide behind an excuse of neutrality but had to issue statements on their opposition to apartheid and introduce programs of redress Universities became sites of intense debate, and, indeed, intellectuals became critically involved in debates about the nature of current and future South African societies. In the wake of the boycott, there was not a curtailing of academic freedom, then, but a flourishing of intellectual thought that was rich, varied, and exciting.
aparTheId and neolIBeralIsm
palesTInIan sTruggle
The healthy linking of the Palestinian struggle

and Sanctions
The campaign for BDS must be in concert with supporting grassroots organizations in Palestine and in the Palestinian diaspora. This can take many forms and shapes including twinning or sister city arrangements, speaking tours, targeted actions in support of specific struggles, and concrete support.
98
Initially, in South Africa the dominant liberation movement and their allies did not support the independent trade union movement which later played a pivotal role in bringing down the apartheid regime. Today, thirteen years after the first democratic elections, the present neoliberal government is privatizing municipal services. The poor who cannot pay their rent are being evicted and failure to pay water and electricity bills means frequent disconnections. The government often calls the inability to pay user fees the culture of non-payment and entitlement. A few years back we were horrified to see officials from the municipality of Cape Town present to a visiting Palestinian delegation, including a proud Saeb Erakat, prepaid water meters. This is not and should not be the solidarity we are talking about! Resistance to neoliberalism in South Africa is growing thirteen years after apartheid. For Palestinians it is happening even before liberation. Amira Hass February 6 article in Haaretz about the workers strike in the West Bank captures this resistance to neo-liberalism: The workers have three main demands: adjusting wages to match the steep increase in the cost of living; a realistic addition to the travel expenses component of salaries; and overturning a new
regulation that demands every resident procure a certificate of honesty based on confirmation of debt payment. Government spokesmen, headed by Fayyad, have often spoken against a culture of non-payment of bills, thus portraying the general Palestinian public as prone to being debt offenders. The strike, and all the public and internal discussions accompanying it, is a fascinating lesson of how Palestinians still acknowledge the power of the collective; how they oppose a liberal economic policy under occupation and colonization, and nurture a democratic suspicion as to the motives of the leading class.
creaTIve energIes
Acts of defiance and determination against overwhelming odds continue to drive the will of Palestinians. The latest act to capture our imagination was the tide of humanity that resolutely breached and trampled upon the wall separating Palestine from Egypt. In the space of a few days almost half of the 1.5 million people in Gaza crossed the border. Global solidarity activists need to be inspired and strengthened by this unleashing of creative energies; the fact that obstacles can be surmounted and the debilitating wastefulness of internecine and sectarian conflicts exposed.
and Sanctions
99
next Steps for the Palestinian Solidarity Movement

By Adam Hanieh The following article is an updated version of a talk given in Toronto on October 4, at the launch of the book Between the Lines: Readings on Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S. War on Terror ( Haymarket Books, 2007), edited by Tikva Honig-Parnass and Toufic Haddad. It was first published in The Bullet, No. 73 November 14, 2007.
he launch of this book is an extremely timely and important contribution to understanding the current situation in Palestine. We all know from the daily reports that this situation is one of the most difficult ever faced by the Palestinian people. In the Gaza Strip, a truly unprecedented assault on the population is unfolding. Over 1.4 million Gazans are trapped in this open-air prison, subject to daily bombardment by Israeli rockets and heavy artillery. Israel has announced plans to cut electricity and fuel supplies to the Strip. These supplies are absolutely necessary to maintaining basic services such as hospitals and sewage treatment plants. We now regularly hear stories of Gaza residents being killed in floods of sewage, as Israel prevents needed supplies and inspections of sewage lakes in the area. The point here, however, is not to focus on the current situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The enormous value of the book lies in the political perspective it outlines. We need to build upon these perspectives and present an assessment of the current stage of our solidarity efforts in places such as Canada and the USA. It is very important that we always situate our efforts historically, take a step back to look at where we are at and where we want to be going.
reTurn To oslo?
Much of the mainstream media has attempted to present the current situation as a re-run of the early 1990s. We are told that the U.S. and EU are
rolling up their sleeves to bring the Palestinian and Israeli sides to the negotiating table in late November. Both Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert are said to be trying to move this process forward but are faced with the recalcitrance of extremists on both sides. Both sides will have to make painful sacrifices. But if done right we can return to the good old days of the Oslo peace process and eventually see the establishment of a Palestinian state living alongside a secure Israel. Naturally, as with the mainstream media coverage of just about everything, this picture is designed to confuse and obfuscate the real situation on the ground. All the talk of negotiations, peace, and painful compromises is designed first and foremost to solidify apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Its very important that we understand this message. When the Oslo agreement was signed in 1993 it created enormous confusion within the Palestinian national movement and the solidarity organizations outside. This was an agreement that was sold to the world as a plan for a Palestinian state, yet in reality it aimed at creating the very situation we see today on the ground. Palestinians herded into isolated Bantustans surrounded by settlements, walls, checkpoints with their movement controlled by permits. The talk of peace and negotiations is designed to hide the reality of an apartheid agreement. Israel is trying to find someone who will sign away the rights of the people most fundamentally the right of return of Palestinian refugees. This is what is go-
Adam Hanieh is a board member of Palestine House, Mississauga.

100
and Sanctions
ing on now. It is not a civil war between Hamas and Fatah, or media fantasies about the supposed emerging Islamic state in Gaza. The 1993 Oslo Accords killed the solidarity movement for seven years. Many people here today were involved in these earlier solidarity movements across North America and can attest to the collapse that happened in the early 1990s. This situation didnt reverse until the people once again rose in the second Intifada in September 2000. That uprising re-sparked the solidarity movement. But the situation today differs significantly from the early 1990s. In many respects we are in a much stronger situation today than that earlier period. This is obviously a testament to the resilience and struggle of the Palestinian people. But it is also due to the work of those in the solidarity movement who did keep fighting throughout the Oslo years, and understood from the outset the real nature of the Oslo agreement. We need to keep this message clear in the coming period. U.S.-sponsored peace plans, backed by some of the client Arab states in the region, will not achieve liberation. The Palestinian people will completely reject any self-appointed leader that attempts to relinquish their rights, the bedrock of which is the right of return of Palestinian refugees. This is not a fringe or radical position but is the fundamental outlook of the Palestinian people as a whole. A very important confirmation of this fact occurred in Canada in late October, over 54 delegates representing virtually every Palestinian community organization across Canada unanimously adopted an open-letter to Mahmoud Abbas warning him of the disaster of the Oslo Accords and the complete rejection of the upcoming U.S.-supported summit in Annapolis, Maryland.
noT JusT The WesT Bank and gaZa sTrIp
One thing that gives us strength today is the widespread understanding that the struggle for justice is not solely a question of what happens in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The aim of the Oslo project was to reduce our struggle to negotiating over bits of land in these areas. Today we see the reality of this those bits of land are nothing but open-air prisons where we see Palestinian prison guards but Israel continues to hold the keys to the
cell. But today we see that the Palestinian people reject that division. Most importantly, we see the growing movement of Palestinian citizens of Israel who are demanding equal rights in a state that has been built on racism and settler-colonialism. Over the past year, four separate declarations by Palestinians from inside Israel have expressed this demand. In response to these declarations, the head of the Israeli intelligence, Yuval Diskin, called Palestinian citizens of Israel a strategic threat and issued a veiled warning that any one attempting to organize around the demand of simple democracy would face the repressive arm of the state. Israel cannot countenance the simple demand for equal rights for Palestinian citizens because it is a state built on racism. Leaders of the Palestinian community have been arrested and kept under administrative detention orders without charge or trial. The head of the National Democratic Assembly (NDA) party and elected member of the Israeli parliament (the Knesset), Azmi Bishara, was forced to flee Israel because he was threatened with imminent arrest. On 30 October, in scenes reminiscent of the West Bank, Israeli police attacked a village in the Galilee village with live ammunition, injuring 40 residents, three of them seriously. And the calls from prominent Israeli academics that describe the Palestinian population inside Israel as a demographic threat are getting ever louder. A barrage of new laws attempt to solidify Israeli racism and silence the growing movement of Palestinians inside Israel. One of these is a law that will prevent anyone who travels to what is deemed an enemy state from running for the Israeli parliament. This law is explicitly aimed at Palestinian parties such as the NDA that maintain strong ties with Arab countries. Moreover, in one of the most Orwellian measures ever adopted by the Israeli state, an October 2007 law requires all school children to sign Israels Declaration of Independence: a declaration that explicitly upholds Israels character as a Jewish state. Imagine any other country that required every child to sign a document supporting the privileged rights of one ethnic or religious group? As Azmi Bishara has pointed out, Palestinians attending Israeli schools are required to sign a document that negates their very existence!
and Sanctions
101
The emerging movement of Palestinians inside Israel is a very important development and cause for optimism. These Palestinians are an integral part of the Palestinian people as a whole. Their struggle strikes the very nature of Israel as an exclusionary, racist state and shows that Israeli apartheid is not just a question of what happens in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. We must continually strengthen our solidarity with their efforts and struggle.
no To normalIZaTIon
Today the strength of our movement rests upon the widespread acceptance that there can be no normalization with Zionism and Israeli apartheid. The basic principle of our movement is that the way to winning justice is not through dialogue or joint projects or empty calls for peace. Rather, justice will be won by isolating the Israeli state and all those who support it. This is a big shift from fifteen years ago when many people bought into the Oslo myth and normalization with Israel was all the rage. A lot of money was thrown at these projects, hundreds of NGOs sprung up dedicated to dialogue and the peace process. But today there is virtual unanimity among the solidarity movement. The way forward is through a sustained campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israeli apartheid. This runs against any attempt to normalize relations with the oppressor. The call for boycott, divestment and sanctions that came from Palestine in 2005 is very clear. The Israeli state must be isolated in the manner of South African apartheid until three conditions are satisfied: the Israeli occupation of all Arab lands is ended; there is full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and the refugees are allowed to return home. These three demands encapsulate the Palestinian experience since 1948: a people who have been uprooted from their land and prevented from returning home. Our struggle is not just in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also to end the racist nature of the Israeli state and allow the refugees to return. It is important to stress that the BDS call is not something that suddenly appeared in 2005. For decades, the core of the Palestinian struggle has always held a position of anti-normalization. To work with
102
and normalize relations with the Israeli state and its supporters means to give consent to ones own oppression. Rather, we should act to isolate and reveal the structures that hold power in place. The need is not for dialogue because the problem is not a lack of understanding. To claim otherwise serves only to justify the existing power structures. More simply: there is an oppressor and an oppressed, and peace will only come through winning justice. The struggle is not between Jewish people and Palestinians. Anti-Zionist Jews and Israelis are prominent activists and leaders of the solidarity movement, including inside Israel. The solidarity movement is totally clear on this point and to claim otherwise is only to engage in slander. Indeed, Between the Lines was co-written by an anti-Zionist Jewish Israeli who has spent many decades working alongside Palestinians in support of justice. The central question is one of racism and settler-colonialism not religious conflict. The BDS call is aimed at Israeli state institutions and their supporters. Our goal is a state where anyone can live regardless of their religious beliefs or ethnicity.
canadIan supporT For Israel
In Canada, we have an important role to play in this global campaign to isolate the Israeli state. The Canadian government is one of the strongest international supporters of Israeli apartheid in the world. Canada was the first country in the world to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority following the elections of January 2006. Canada did this even before the Israeli government. The Canadian government at all levels has provided full diplomatic support for Israels war crimes. Many of us remember that during Israels bombardment of Lebanon in 2006, Harper described Israels actions as measured and justified and opposed calls for a ceasefire. But Harpers comments are not those of an individual. Across the political spectrum, Canadas mainstream political parties have given unequivocal support to Israeli policies. In 2005, it was then Liberal Party leader Paul Martin who declared that Israels values are Canadas values. At the economic level, Canada has signed numerous agreements with Israel that serve to strengthen and sustain the Israeli economy. In 1997, the CaLabour for PaLestine
and Sanctions
nadian government signed the Canada Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA). This is the only FTA Canada has signed outside of the western hemisphere. It has been an enormous boon to Israel. From 2000 to 2005, the value of Israeli exports to Canada exceeded Canadian exports to Israel, reversing the trend from the 1990s. Over the same period, average annual Israeli foreign direct investment in Canada exceeded that of Canada in Israel. This is an agreement that has benefited Israel, and helped support the Israeli economy. Another agreement, the Canada Israel Industrial Research and Development Foundation, provides seed money for Israeli-Canadian research and development. Over 200 companies have been funded by this scheme and the Canadian government now boasts that Israel is its longest standing technology partner. A similar agreement between Ontario and the Israeli government was also signed by Dalton McGuinty and Ehud Olmert in 2005. Prominent Canadian business leaders have been among the staunchest supporters of the Israeli government. Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz are the majority owners of Indigo Books. They set up a fund called the Heseg Foundation for Lone Soldiers that provides scholarships and other support for individuals who have chosen to go to Israel and serve in the Israeli military. In 2006, Reisman and Schwartz attended a ceremony at an Israeli military base where they were awarded the gun of an Israeli soldier killed in Lebanon. These various forms of support are not surprising given the record of the Canadian government in places such as Afghanistan and Haiti where Canadian troops and other personnel serve to support military occupations. Or the record of large Canadian companies in extracting the resources and wealth of people around the globe. Or the centuries-long attacks against the indigenous people of this land that continues today. This is why the Palestinian solidarity movement also stands with those struggles: we are all strengthened when we fight together.
IdeologIcal BaTTle
But we should be clear: the campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions is not about politely asking the Canadian government or business leadLabour for PaLestine
ers to cut their ties with Israeli apartheid. We must compel them to do so. We know from the South African struggle that those in power will support apartheid until we build a movement large enough to force a change. Over ten years after the formal end of South African apartheid a certain myth has grown up that says the world was always against the practices of the South African regime. Nothing could be further from the truth. Successive Canadian, U.S. and British governments wholeheartedly backed South African apartheid for decades. The leaderships of Canadian unions proudly championed their links with the apartheid regime and large corporations made millions from their investments in South African apartheid. It took decades of hard work by activists to turn around popular acceptance and support for South African apartheid. It is important to emphasize that the BDS strategy is fundamentally about winning this ideological battle. No one holds any illusions that Israel will suffer economically at this stage from resolutions and boycott campaigns. Rather, BDS provides a powerful entry point for talking to people about the nature of the Israeli state and the structures that support it in the West. What we are doing is convincing people that Israel like the South African precedent is a pariah state that must be isolated. To deal with Israel is something to be ashamed of. We are undermining the ideological support (much of it passive) that allows Israel to continue its horrendous practices against the Palestinian people. For this reason, the BDS strategy cannot be separated from the day-to-day information work we do around Palestine. This information and educational work lays the basis for BDS work. The BDS strategy provides a direction for activity once people understand the reality of the situation. We have made some very important gains here in Canada. The historic resolution of CUPE Ontario in May 2006 in support of boycott and divestment was a turning point. The CUPE Ontario resolution was an outstanding example of how BDS enables us to educate and activate people around Palestine. For the first time in decades, the key issues of the Palestinian struggle were debated on the front pages of Canadian newspapers and on TV and radio stations across the country. Thousands of ordinary
and Sanctions
103
CUPE members received information about the campaign or went through workshops and talks explaining why Israeli apartheid should be isolated and ended. The greatest achievement of this resolution was the chance to speak to rank and file CUPE members and build support for Palestine within the union. We cant underestimate how important this was in helping shift popular consciousness and understanding. This quite simply would not have happened if CUPE had simply passed yet another condemn the violence, call for peace resolution. Hundreds of thousands of people that is no exaggeration were touched by this resolution. On campuses too, there has been a strong upsurge in understanding the nature of Israeli apartheid. The annual Israeli apartheid week, which began here in Toronto, has expanded globally to cities such as New York, Oxford and Cambridge. In 2007, close to a thousand people attended the weeks activities in Toronto. This coming year promises to be even larger and occur in many more cities across the world. The campaign to boycott Chapters-Indigo has also been a great success. Regular pickets are happening in six cities across the country. Over 40,000 leaflets have been distributed nationally since the campaign began in January. Heather Reismans book reading appearances across the country have been disrupted by activists opposed to her support of Israeli apartheid. Students at a high school in Toronto lobbied their school to pass a resolution to boycott Indigo. Smaller bookstores in Ontario have signed onto the campaign and now carry leaflets and information about Israeli apartheid. Our next step should be to raise our voices demanding that Canadian governments at both the
federal and provincial levels cut their ties with Israeli apartheid. We can call for agreements such as CIFTA, or, here in Ontario, the provincial level agreements with Israel, to be abrogated. We must call for an end to the diplomatic cover provided to Israeli war crimes. The Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez has shown the way in this regard when they became the first country in the world to withdraw their ambassador from Israel in the summer of 2006.
conclusIon
Israels crushing of the population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and its apparent success in cultivating a Palestinian leadership to return to an Oslo-type process are pyrrhic victories. The real nature of Israel is truly understood by more people than any other point in the last sixty years and support for the Zionist project beyond Western governments and elites is in tatters. Palestinians remain one people: united across refugee camps, the Diaspora, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and inside Israel itself. All these sectors of the people are moving forward and rejecting normalization with Israel, despite what various self-appointed leaderships might do or say. This is a time to be very proud of our activities in support of the Palestinian struggle. In years to come, we shall look back on the struggles of today and realize that what we did in the here and now was an integral part of winning justice. This is a struggle that affects the entire people of the Middle East and its outcome will shape the course of history. It is not a struggle that will end tomorrow, but we can be absolutely confident that it is a struggle which we shall eventually win.
104
and Sanctions
section fiVe
Palestine solidarity and the North American Labour Movement

On 27 May, 2006, the largest public sector union in Ontario, CUPE, adopted a ground- breaking resolution (Resolution 50) that expressed CUPE Ontarios support for the global campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions. This section opens with the text of Resolution 50 and a very important letter of support received by CUPE Ontario from the President of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) immediately after Resolution 50 was adopted. COSATU was a leading force in the struggle against South African apartheid. The letter concludes with the powerful words: Your unwavering resolve inspires us, we who lived through decades of apartheid oppression, as it will undoubtedly inspire and endear you to millions of Palestinian and other freedom loving people throughout the world. In April 2008, a second major breakthrough for the North American labour movement came with the adoption of a BDS resolution by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW). CUPW was the first union to adopt a boycott stance against South African apartheid and is the first national union to do so in the case of Israeli apartheid. The CUPW press release is reprinted here. This section concludes with a selection of articles and commentary written by trade union activists in the immediate wake of the CUPE resolution, statements by US labour organizations in support of Palestine, and a rebuttal to Bnai Briths attack on CUPE Ontario that takes up many of the standard canards employed by pro-Israel forces against labour activists.
CuPe ontario resolution no. 50

Adopted at annual convention May 27, 2006
CUPE ONTARIO WILL: 1. With Palestine solidarity and human rights organizations, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of canada for these practices. 2. Support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian peoples inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law including the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194. 3. Call on CUPE National to commit to research into Canadian involvement in the occupation and call on the CLC to join us in lobbying against the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state and call for the immediate dismantling of the wall. Because: The Israeli Apartheid Wall has been condemned and determined illegal under international law.
Over 170 Palestinian political parties, unions and other organization including the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unoins issued a call in July 2005 for a global campaign of boycotts and divestment against Israel similar to those imposed against South african apartheid. CUPE BC has firmly and vocally condemned the occupation of Palestine and have initiated an education campaign about the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state.
SECTION FIVE: Palestine
Solidarity and the North American Labour Movement
107
Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) Press Release
Postal workers take firm stand to support Palestinian workers

April 29, 2008 For Immediate Release Ottawa The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) joined the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel during their national convention this month. Hundreds of delegates to CUPWs convention passed a resolution supporting sanctions and calling on the union to work toward an end to suicide bombings, military assaults and other acts of violence that take the lives of innocent people. Its time to push for a fair and just settlement so that both Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace, said Denis Lemelin, CUPW National President. There cant be a solution while settlements exist on Palestinian land and while a security barrier restricts the movement of Palestinian workers. CUPW is the first national union in North America to pass a resolution supporting the boycott, divestment and sanctions. However, a number of international and Canadian organizations support the campaign. Delegates at our convention listened to the call from Palestinian unions and organizations in joining this campaign, said Lemelin. This is a non-violent tactic aimed at reaching a just peace, he added. Over 170 Palestinian political parties, unions and other organizations issued a call in July 2005 for a global campaign of boycott and divestment against Israel similar to the one applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. These measures are intended to continue until Israel recognizes the right of Palestinian people to self-determination and fully complies with international law. CUPW represents 56,000 workers in the postal sector. From April 13-17, postal workers voted on a vast array of resolutions at their national convention held in Ottawa.
108
Letter from the President of the South African Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) to the President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario June 6, 2006 Brother Sid Ryan, On behalf over 1.2 million South African workers organized under the banner of COSATU I greet you in the name of worker internationalism. It is this solidarity, since the formation of the very first union and across space and time, often in the face of harsh repression, that provided vital moral succour and allowed workers to strengthen their resolve against oppression and exploitation. In this spirit and with great pride, I congratulate CUPE Ontario for their historic resolution on May 27th in support of the Palestinian people those living under occupation and those millions of Palestinian refugees living in the Diaspora. We fully support your resolution. As someone who lived in apartheid South Africa and who has visited Palestine I say with confidence that Israel is an apartheid state. In fact, I believe that some of the atrocities committed by the erstwhile apartheid regime in South Africa pale in comparison to those committed against the Palestinians. The latest outrage by the apartheid Israeli regime the construction of the hideous Apartheid Wall condemned by the International Court of Justice extends the occupation of Palestinian lands, disrupts the already precarious economic, social, health and education well being of an entire people and entrenches the bantustanisation of Palestine. When the governments of the world turn a blind eye to these injustices; when they are seduced by apartheid Israels justification of brutality through the pretext of security; when they silence criticism of state terror through the canard of anti-semitism then it is time for the global workers movement to stand firm and principled against hypocrisy and double standards. We cannot remain silent any longer. It is time to stand in word and in deed with the peoples of the Middle East and heed their call to support the struggle against occupation. There will be no peace in this region and in the world, without justice. Despite the action of some Western governments and big business, workers and democrats of the world including the citizens of Canada, heeded our call when we struggled against apartheid. Boycotts, disinvestments and sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa hastened our march to democracy. Why should it be different for Palestinians? In the face of an intransigent, arrogant, racist and brutal Israeli state, this strategy of isolation particularly since the vast majority of Palestinians support it should be applied to Israel as well. It is a peaceful option. South African workers will never forget the support given by the Israeli state to the apartheid South African regime. In the same way we will never forget the thousands of acts of solidarity of ordinary citizens around the world who sustained our struggle through the boycott weapon. COSATU supports the demand that Apartheid Israel must respect and implement all resolutions passed by the United Nations; that the right of return of Palestinian refugees must not be compromised; that Israel respects the democratically elected government of Palestine; and that Palestinian taxes collected by Israel must be returned to the elected representatives of Palestine unconditionally. Those supporting the ideology of Zionism and the pro-Israeli lobby will muster their substantial resources against you. Despite these pressures, we ask you not to doubt for a single moment the correctness of your just stand. We salute the courage and vision of CUPE Ontarios leadership and members in unanimously passing resolution 50.Your unwavering resolve inspires us, we who lived through decades of apartheid oppression, as it will undoubtedly inspire and endear you to millions of Palestinian and other freedom loving people throughout the world. in solidarity Willie Madisha President congress of south african trade unions
109
By Adam Hanieh The Bullet (No. 22, May 31, 2006) available at http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet)
CuPe ontario takes Important Step against Israeli Apartheid
t 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 unions 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 selfdetermination. 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 Israels discrimi110
natory 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. 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 Englands 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 worldwide. 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 Congresss (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 Ontarios 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 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 disengagementis meant to formalize in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. All informed commentators agree that Olmerts 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 ever 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
111
equal rights to everyone else. In 1948, 80 percent 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 Olmerts disengagement plan confirms the basic premise of the current anti-apartheid struggle: Olmert outlined to Israels 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. Olmerts 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 Olmerts 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 Zionisms 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.
112
CuPe Boycott Israel Debate rages on

By David Kidd and Herman Rosenfeld The Bullet (No. 26, June 29, 2006, updated May 2008). Available at http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet
s trade union and community activists, socialists and officials in our respective union organizations, we strongly support the recent Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario resolution supporting the international Boycott Israel campaign. The resolution criticises Israels continuing occupation of Palestinian territory, characterising it as apartheid. It calls on the union to develop an education campaign; supports the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, until it fully recognizes Palestinian national rights including the right to return to their homes and properties; seeks CUPE National to undertake research into Canadas role in the occupation; and calls on the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) to join in lobbying efforts to oppose Israeli apartheid. The unresolved Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands lies at the root of much of the political turmoil in the Middle East. It is the smouldering coal that continues to ignite resentment of the west and contributes to the hateful fires of anti-semitism. It gives unwanted currency to the regime of the Iranian mullahs and fundamentalists of all religious stripes. Resolving this dispute through the granting of full national rights to the Palestinian people is a key to reducing the tensions between the Moslem, Jewish and Christian communities in the region, and more widely. CUPE Ontario, like its sister organization in BC before it, should be congratulated for acting decisively, arguing that the working class and trade union movement should take the lead and help to deepen and widen our collective understanding of the real nature and costs of the Israeli occupation.
opposITIon To cupe and The BoycoTT campaIgn
CUPE Ontarios resolution has raised a furor amongst the supporters of Israels governing establishment and those who justify its policies and practices. From the Israeli establishment itself, proIsrael organizations, to Conservative and Liberal politicians and even some NDP parliamentarians and labour leaders, there has been an angry response, with similar themes and arguments. Let us look at some of these. Israel and middle east democracy Pro-Israel organizations and individuals raised a series of common arguments, such as: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East a bastion of western values why does CUPE attack it? One spokesperson from the Toronto Board of Rabbis claimed: No other country facing terrorism and military threat in the history of the world has behaved in a more legal and ethical manner than Israel. (Rabbi Aaron Flanzraich, CUPE wrong to boycott Israel, Toronto Star, 1 June 2006) Israel claims to support democracy, human rights and the peaceful solution of differences. The reality is very different. Israels brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is rife with some of the worst forms of oppression and violence. As Vicki Obedkoff, a United Church Minister, reported after a recent visit to the West Bank: Our introduction to the brutality of Israels military occupation was on Orthodox Easter Sunday when, just a few blocks from our hotel, Israeli agents in an unmarked car fired 200 to 300 bullets on three Bethlehem young men who apparSolidarity and the North American Labour Movement
113
ently were on Israels wanted list. Assassinations like this are common, we found out: 50 young men in the resistance movement to the Israeli occupation were assassinated in the past six months. The wanted persons are not arrested nor tried. They are killed without even an incident report required to be filed. It is official Israeli government policy to authorize the army to perform such assassinations, without reports nor trials being required. (unpublished report, June 2, 2006) Certainly, the Middle East is full of non-democratic regimes, but this doesnt excuse the horrific reality of the Israeli occupation, and that Israeli democracy actively suppresses the democratic rights of another peoples. This is the most basic violation of democratic practice. Israel and peacemaking Another theme is that Israel is the true peacemaker. The claim is that Israel recognizes the selfdetermination of the Palestinian people and has tried to make peace with the Palestinians for years. The latter have refused to, walk through the door opened by Israeli promises of peace. Former Israeli cabinet minister and Soviet Jewish dissident Natan Sharansky writes that the Palestinian Authority squandered (the) opportunity when Israel, unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. (This Boycott Call is Un-Canadian, Toronto Star, 1 June 2006) This is one of the biggest falsifications of all. It flies in the face of the entire history of Israels relation to Palestinians. Israel systematically expelled Palestinians from their homes providing a textbook case of ethnic cleansing in order to establish and consolidate the existence of the new state in the 1940s. This created the Palestinian diaspora, a process that continues in different forms in both Israel and the Occupied Territories till this day. Throughout most of its life as a country, Israeli leaders denied the very existence of the Palestinian people. It is not at all clear that Israel actually accepts the building of a Palestinian state, as it undermines its administration, government and sovereignty at every turn the latest being the rejection of the democratically elected Hamas government of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and the various military incursions into Gaza.
114
After the 1967 war, when Israel conquered and occupied the West Bank of the Jordan River and Gaza, it became the political and economic master of tens of thousands of Palestinians. It was during this time that the Palestinian resistance movement arose, and earned world-wide recognition for the legitimacy of their struggle for national rights. Since that period, Israel was forced to change its approach. While acknowledging the existence of Palestinians and their right to some form of self-determination, Israel consistently denied them sovereignty on the West Bank and Gaza. Instead, Israel has worked to create a relationship of economic and political domination over the Palestinians, with certain similarities to the relationship between the Afrikaners of South Africa and the black majority. This similarity of structural and legal racial discrimination and domination by an external settlercolonial society has been noted by South African anti-apartheid heroes such as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, as well as Israeli anti-occupation organizations and movements. Palestinians were used as a cheap labour source in Israel, and the economies of Gaza and the West Bank became dependent upon the more developed Israeli economy. Israeli settlers motivated by fundamentalist religious values were encouraged to occupy areas, controlling key water resources and were protected by the Israeli state, in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel also maintained and continues to maintain a dense network of military bases and checkpoints, along with the settlements, to control the lives of Palestinians. Even after a series of key struggles the intifadas where Palestinian children were reduced to throwing stones at Israeli armoured vehicles, Israel refused to grant full political rights to the Palestinians. The creation of the Palestinian Authority in 1993 was not an act of full sovereignty. Palestine did not have its own army and continued to rely on the military overlordship of Israel, and was subject to Israeli economic and political control. At Camp David and Oslo, the Israeli government, along with the US, argued for maintenance of the disconnected and disjointed bantustan-like arrangement of limited Palestinian sovereignty over a system of small, disconnected communities in Gaza and the West Bank. That is why the
negotiations broke off. In fact, the Israeli political establishment never moved off of this intransigent refusal to grant complete sovereignty to the Palestinian people over the areas Israel conquered in the 1967 six-day war. Ariel Sharon, associated with the murderous attacks on the refugee camps in Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon in the 1980s, came up with a scheme to withdraw settlements from Gaza in exchange for a fortification of the West Bank and further occupation of key parts of the latter. Although this was packaged as being a significant move by Israel, military incursions and interference remain an everyday reality of Palestinian life in Gaza. All exits and entrance points to and from Gaza by air, sea and land are controlled by Israel. Gaza remains under Israeli control, one of the most densely populated areas in the world sealed in like an open-air prison. On the West Bank, under this so-called convergence plan, Israel maintains the vicious and humiliating occupation. Demolitions of thousands of Palestinian homes continue as collective punishment for families of those who either resist or are implicated in terrorist attacks on Israelis. Highways connect Israeli settlers with Israel, while transportation and communications links amongst Palestinians lie in ruins. Israel controls Palestinian airspace. The plan appears to be to annex somewhere between 10 and 30 percent of the West Bank. Ehud Olmert, Israels current Prime Minister continues to impose the Sharon solution on the Palestinian population and refuses to recognize the Palestinians right to a self-governing state. Then there is the so-called Security Wall. ProIsrael organizations claim that it is a reasonable strategy to protect Israelis against terrorist attacks. Other defenders of Israel simply try to avoid references to it. The Wall, known around the world as the apartheid Wall, does not respect the pre-1967 borders of Israel. It annexes part of the West Bank land claimed by the Palestinians. It protects major settlements and almost one-half million Zionist settlers. It removes the richest agricultural lands and water resources from the Palestinian people and carves the West Bank Palestinian communities further into small, disconnected enclaves. It separates families (as does the racist Israeli law that
prevents Palestinians from living with their IsraeliArab spouses) and makes everyday life extremely difficult. Palestine and Israel Critics claim that the right of Palestinian refugees displaced by Israel to return to their homes and properties is an unwarranted attack on Israel. The CUPE resolution argues that this is a right guaranteed by the United Nations. Pro-Israel interests say it would lead to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. The overwhelming majority of the Palestinian movement argues for a two-state solution, where Israels pre-1967 borders are secured, with a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza given full sovereignty, and a shared capital in Jerusalem. Israel refuses to grant that sovereignty, and fully claims Jerusalem as its capital and continues to displace the Arab residents of East Jerusalem. Even so, many question the idea of a state that identifies with one religious or ethnic group, denying fundamental rights to others. This kind of a vision is similar to the one that underlines western and other democratic societies, with a secular civic state, apart from religious and ethnic identities. The west claims to be pursuing such a state in its rejection of Islamic clerical states. Why should there be an exemption for Israel and its Jewish citizens from this basic measure of democracy, considering that in reality, Israel is a state with a wide plurality of religions and ethnicities? For historical reasons, involving efforts to escape anti-semitism Israel does claim to be Jewish and Jews from the around the world have the right to return to a country they have no material links with. It shouldnt be all that surprising that Palestinians whose lands were stolen through war and terrorism in order to make room for Israel 50 years ago should find this to be a problem. In the long run, many Palestinians and other progressives argue for the eventual transformation of Israel into a secular, democratic state where people of all religions and ethnic backgrounds are guaranteed equal rights and participation. Whatever the long term goals of people in the area, there is a fairly wide consensus around movement to a two-state solution that will guarantee the
115
rights of both Israel and the Palestinians. In this context, the meaning of the Palestinian right of return must be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel refuses to do so. It must also be emphasized that challenging the very notion of a Jewish state or a religious-based state of any kind in no way justifies charges of anti-semitism. While there are anti-semites that challenge Israel and its policies, they are a tiny minority of Israels critics. Israeli actions themselves have given rise to anti-semitic responses around the world. This is tragic and like all racism, must be fully condemned. It is perverse to fault those who raise legitimate criticisms of Israeli apartheid practices and accuse them of the effects Israels practices have. Terrorism and justice Critics also claim that CUPEs resolution ignores terrorist attacks and suicide bombers. In response, CUPE-Ontario President Sid Ryan noted in a Toronto Star op-ed piece (Protesting Against Israeli Apartheid, 2 June 2006) that the union approved a resolution requesting the Canadian government call for, and actively work toward, an end to suicide bombings and other violence against innocent people. Progressive voices around the world condemn both the state-sponsored terrorism of Israel, and the suicide bombings of elements of the resistance movement. Calling for an end to Israels occupation of Palestinian territory and the tearing down of the Wall is in no way linked to the use of suicide bombings that harm civilians in the resistance movement. Unions and international solidarity Many of the Israeli governments apologists have complained that unions have no business commenting on issues such as this. They have a difficult time accepting the fact that CUPE sees a deep and unshakeable link between social justice in the Middle East and at home. The same forces that oppress working people in Canada operate everywhere. Thats why CUPE and other unions have taken positions supporting struggles for social and political justice in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, China, South Asia, Europe and the United States. International solidarity was one of the keystones of the establishment of unions in the 19th century
116
to deal with employer discrimination against union workers. This long tradition of naming international issues of social justice and acting on them was reflected in the international trade union campaigns against South African apartheid. Unions were among some of the first and most persistent civil society organizations to take up the issue and organize around it. The criticisms of international union solidarity are not honest. The real point is that they dont want working people and their most important organizations of self-defence, trade unions, to challenge Israels policies and Canadian government complicity. The fact is that CUPE-Ontario isnt the only union in Canada to take a position challenging Israeli policies although its references to apartheid and support for boycotts pushes the Palestinian solidarity movement in Canada into new territory. At the CLC Convention in 2005, the delegates demanded that the Canadian government pressure Israel to uphold international law and implement the International Court of Justice decision by dismantling the Israeli separation wall on occupied Palestinian territory. As well, in March 2004, the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) National Executive Board endorsed the World Council of Churchs call to stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. More recently, Willy Madisha, president of COSATU, the central union of South African workers, publicly defended CUPE-Ontarios resolution. He clearly underlines the imperative for supporting CUPE-Ontarios stand: Despite the action of some Western governments and big business, workers and democrats of the world, including the citizens of Canada, heeded our call when we struggled against apartheid. Boycotts, disinvestments and sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa hastened our march to democracy. Why should it be different for Palestinians? In the face of an intransigent, arrogant, racist and brutal Israeli state, this strategy of isolation particularly since the vast majority of Palestinians support it should be applied to Israel as well. It is a peaceful option. CUPE and democracy Many of the critics of the resolution complain that the vote was held on a Saturday the Jewish
Sabbath, or that the resolution was passed without a referendum vote. Union conventions are responsible bodies and the delegates who make decisions there are elected by the membership. They are empowered to pass resolutions which become the policy of the union. They dont have referenda on every policy issue. These are generally accepted principles of practical democracy in this country. These conventions are secular affairs and members of every religion and creed participated in the debate. CUPE-Ontario sends out the resolutions to the delegates before the convention, so they can consider and discuss them in a timely manner. It may be true that all delegates to union conventions dont necessarily follow the outcome of every resolution, especially on the last day. But one can hardly claim that this vote was undemocratic. The problem is that some people didnt like the outcome.
is that the resolution undermines positive moves for genuine dialogue and exchange, by engaging in what it called, simple rhetoric like the claim that Israel is equivalent to the former South African apartheid regime. It calls on the labour movement (and the left) to support the peace efforts of PNA President Mahmoud Abbas, condemn Hamas for its support of terrorism and its refusal to recognize the right of Israelis to exist within secure borders, and boycott Iran instead of Israel. While it is clear that the article reflects a genuine desire for a peace, we respectfully but profoundly disagree with its basic thrust. No balance between Israel and Palestinians Reading the article, one would get the impression that there is somehow a balance between Israel and the Palestinians. There is no reference to the overpowering military might of Israel, the essential powerlessness of the Palestinians, the brutal occupation and the daily humiliation and destruction that Israel wreaks on innocent men, women and children. No wonder it rejects the description of Israel as an apartheid state. It ignores the case made for the parallel in the assessments of COSATU, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. The daily real material realities of Palestinian life, as set in Israeli law and administrative practices, illegal occupation, labour market structures, and human rights abuses that are catalogued by the United Nations agencies in the region, that underpin the apartheid label, simply disappear. In the article, there is no reference to the illegal Wall cutting through the West Bank that separates families and enforces the control over water and land for the Israeli state and fundamentalist settlers that serve as its shock troops. How is it possible to talk about the CUPE resolution without confronting the terrible reality of the apartheid Wall? There is no acknowledgement of what most of the world and almost everyone on the left knows that Israel is the principal aggressor. Israel expelled most of the Palestinians in 1948 and it is Israel that occupies the West Bank and continues illegally to exercise sovereignty over the Palestinian National Authority and the Occupied Territories, condemned repeatedly in the United Nations and international courts.
unIon opposITIon To cupe
Although the CUPE resolution has generated much discussion and favourable comment amongst union activists, there have only been a few public responses from the rest of the Canadian union movement on the CUPE-Ontario resolution. The CLC, of course, has not commented. On June 13th, the Steelworkers Toronto Area Council passed a resolution expressing solidarity with CUPEs stand. The resolution has started a heated debate within different sections of CUPE. Some members and locals in Ontario have criticized Resolution 50 and have called for disaffiliation from CUPE Ontario. CUPE National has somewhat distanced itself. They note on their website that it respects the right of its chartered organizations to take a stand on all issues, but goes on to say that the union will not be issuing a call, nor have we been asked by our members in CUPE Ontario to call local unions across Canada to boycott Israel. It continues: CUPE encourages democratic debate on international issues. Debates focused on the Middle East should respect the legitimate aspirations of both the Palestinian and Israeli people. The CUPE resolution was also criticised by CAW President Buzz Hargrove, the single major labour leader to speak out, in a Toronto Star op-ed (CUPE Boycott of Israel Wont Help Cause of Peace, 5 June 2006). The articles central argument
117
Phoney peace moves The Hargrove article is also wrong about the old warhorse, Ariel Sharon, the now comatose former Prime Minister of Israel. With a military record that qualifies him as a war criminal for numerous incidents, but especially for the atrocities in refugee camps in Lebanon under his military watch, Sharon hardly qualifies as a peacemaker. The unilateral moves by his government were made in order to avoid having to bargain with the Palestinians. Sharons principal adviser, Dov Weisglass, in an October 2004 interview in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, admitted that the unilateral disengagement policy was designed to freeze the peace process, deny the Palestinians a viable state and counter growing demands within Israel to restart negotiations for a permanent peace accord. The withdrawal from Gaza still maintains ultimate Israeli control and the partial withdrawal from the West Bank is bogus, especially given that settlements continue to expand. Iran red herring The references to Iran in the article create a diversion from the fundamental problem of Israel a country that already has nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in violation of numerous international treaties. Iran has been a major irritant in the area since the victory of the Ayatollahs in the 1970s. Everyone on the left or in the trade union movement has denounced the Iranian regime, its repression of labour, lack of democracy, its appalling president and its possible moves to build nuclear weapons. But it is principally George Bush and his buddies who have edged the world closer to a potential new war over Iran over the development of nuclear energy research and capacities in line with its international treaty obligations, while other countries allied with the US are aided in further developing their nuclear arms capacities or to pursue secretly nuclear weapons research. (In recent European polls, Bush is considered to be a greater threat to world peace than Iran!) Canadian trade unionists have a responsibility to distance ourselves from this latest US hysteria campaign and not abet it. Peace and justice That brings us to the issue of peace, the central
118
part of the articles argument. Israel continues to ignore the numerous UN resolutions that have called for its withdrawal and the destruction of the Wall. At the UN, Israel is almost always amongst a tiny minority along with the United States (and now Harpers Canada) defending its indefensible policies. The article implies that the principal obstacle to peace is Hamass intransigent refusal to recognize Israel and renounce terror. Certainly the election of the fundamentalist movement and the more recent takeover of Gaza by the movement - complicates the already difficult situation. Religious fundamentalism is to be deplored in whatever form Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. But most observers acknowledge that Hamas was not elected because of support for fundamentalism. Hamas was elected democratically by the Palestinian people. Israel and its backers in the west including the Canadian government refuse to recognize their democratic decision. This is incredibly hypocritical. For years the US and others have been demanding that Palestinians hold new elections, and now that they have been held, they find the results illegitimate, because the choice wasnt to their liking. Isnt this similar to the response of employers when workers actually vote for a union? Employers have no right to dictate to workers and we have no right to dictate to the Palestinian people. This is not to mention the ongoing boycott of the Palestinian government and cut-off of aid programs has caused terrible hardship amongst the Palestinians, denying food, medicines and other necessities - a desperate humanitarian crisis. One wonders: why doesnt the article call for an end to this horrific and hypocritical boycott? Hargrove rightly opposes the horrors of terrorism. Suicide bombing or rocket attacks against innocent civilians are not acceptable and should stop. But blowing up houses, torture, arbitrary arrests and detention, illegal assassinations, and military strikes that routinely kill innocent families and children (as in the horrific slaughter of a family at the beach in Gaza by the Israeli military on June 9th) is also terrorism. The state terrorism of Israel must also stop. Peace can only come to Palestine when two things happen: firstly, Israel must first renounce the policies of occupation, oppression and apartheid and recognize the legitimate rights of Palestinians
and the duly elected government and representatives of the Palestinian people. Such a move by Israel is the key condition. This will come from a combination of things. Peace activists in Israel that support the rights of Palestinians must defeat the current political establishment. There are a number of political movements within Israel that fight for such changes and maintain a continuous dialogue with the Palestinian movement. The Palestinian people continue their resistance for an end of the Occupation and full civil rights for Palestinians in Israel. And the international solidarity movement, particularly within North America where Israel receives its greatest support for its policies of occupation, settlement and military deployment, must pressure western governments and Israel to change. Israeli peace activist and Palestinian civil organizations and unions see CUPEs resolution and the campaigns it calls for as a component part of that international pressure, a necessary condition for peace. Secondly, the Palestinian movement has to be willing to negotiate with Israel. Even with the ongoing rejection of Palestinian national rights and the current division amongst Palestinians, full negotiations with both Hamas as well as the Palestinian Authority are possible. A couple of years ago, Palestinian prisoners inside Israeli prisons - from across the spectrum of Palestinian groups (including Hamas)- forged a Prisoners Document, which works for a coming together of the Palestinian resistance on the basis of a two-state solution. And while the division of the Palestinian movement needs to be addressed by Palestinians themselves, it is clearly possible to negotiate with Hamas, in spite of the movements refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the existing state of Israel. Until recent Israeli assassinations of notable Palestinian militants and the gruesome murder of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach, Hamas held to a cease-fire with Israel. Hamas is a necessary part of a new peace process (as even former Israeli generals concede!). But this can only happen when Israel backs off its intransigent position, and actually demonstrates it is willing to accept a Palestinian state. The Israeli military incursions into Gaza over the last few days, with even further destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and the detainment of
members of the elected Hamas government (all in retaliation for the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, while Israel daily arrests and assassinates), only continues the cycle of aggression and violence. It also reflects the contempt that Israel holds for the sovereignty of Palestinian institutions, world opinion and social justice.
W haT can canadIan unIonIsTs do?
The role of progressive trade unionists in Canada is to build solidarity across the union movement in opposition to Israeli apartheid. Unions should support the CUPE-Ontario resolution, pass similar ones, take up the kind of education campaign that CUPE is calling for, and participate in the developing global campaign for divestment and boycott of Israel. CUPE-Ontario is not alone. Importantly, the United Church of Canadas Toronto branch has opened a boycott of Israeli products and companies doing business with its military. It also wants the church and its members to divest from companies supplying the Israeli military and boycott all products from the occupied territories. It also calls on Ottawa to require that products originating in the occupied territories must have separate labels, identifying their origins. This is part of an ongoing campaign by the church to oppose Israels occupation. Education is a key. While a growing number of Canadians and one would assume trade union members are critical of Israels occupation, many really dont know more than they read in the papers or see on TV. Canadas media monopolies, including even the CBC, are mainly controlled now by right-wing political forces. Their coverage of the Middle East is quite impoverished and imbalanced. By introducing the idea that Israel is an apartheid state, trade unions can contribute to a deeper understanding of the realities of the Middle East and help further the cause of international solidarity, social justice and anti-imperialism. Just like the important role the Canadian trade union movement played in supporting the boycott of South Africas apartheid system in the 1980s in Canada actually changing peoples understanding of that important struggle the union movement can again contribute to a struggle for social justice and legitimate rights national self-determination.
119
Building Labour Solidarity with Palestine

The experience of CUPE Ontario Resolution 50
Speech given by Katherine Nastovski, former chair of CUPE Ontario International Solidarity Committee, to Israeli Apartheid Week 2008, University of Toronto.
n May of 2006 the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario, the largest section of the largest union in Canada adopted a Resolution calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israeli Apartheid. This Resolution was a direct response to the call that came from Palestine in July of 2005 for an International campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. The call was issued by over 170 civil organizations within Palestine including the vast majority of unions and union federations. Modeled on the movement to end South African apartheid, this campaign calls for 1. an end to the occupation, the dismantling of the apartheid wall 2. full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel and 3. full compliance with UN Resolution 194, the right of return. To do this, our Resolution called on the union to initiate an education campaign and do research to identify the ways we support Israeli apartheid through our pensions, investments and as consumers. Resolution 50, supporting the movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions(bds) against Israel, was not spontaneous moment it was preceded by years of building within CUPE and other unions spanning from the CUPE British Columbias committees educational work to motions debated at different levels since 2000 from the provincial conventions to the Canadian Labour Congress. Immediately following the Resolution as many will recall there was a lengthy media campaign against our decision as well as various levels of intimidation and threats against members, leaders and staff. We definitely got peoples attention. Some of the op-eds in the papers included con120
demnation by the Israeli Ambassador to Canada, Buzz Hargrove of the Canadian Auto Workers (who unfortunately has dramatically changed his position on Palestine amongst other things over the past few years) and an article by the leader of the Histadrut (which is the Israeli Labour Federation) telling us that if we really want to help Palestinians, we should share our skills and help Palestinians open up credit unions in the occupied territories. This was followed only a few months later with Israels assault on Gaza and Lebanon. The media attacks ended there. During this time, we also received letters of support from around the world including an immediate letter of solidarity from Brother Willie Madisha, leader of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) who themselves adopted a similar motion three months later. Since the passing of Resolution 50 dozens of unions at local and national levels have taken positions to heed the BDS call with motions that have included: calls for immediate sanctions, divestment of pensions, fighting free trade agreements with Israel, ending diplomatic relations with Israel and adopting a full boycott of Israeli goods/academic institutions by members. These unions and federations include: Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union of Ireland, Republic of Ireland in July 06 Transport and General Workers Union, UK June 06 Sacked Merseyside Dockworkers, on behalf of Merseyside trade unionists, UK June 06 Central nica dos Trabalhadores (CUT) July 06
Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), South Africa August 06 Norwegian Electrician and IT Workers Union, Norway September 06 National Union of Journalists (NUJ), UK December 06 UCU (British Academic Union), UK August 07 UNISON, UK Passes boycott motion and demands UK government sanctions Israel May 07 Northern Ireland Public Services Alliance (NIPSA), UK June 07 Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Republic of Ireland July 07 These are just to name a few of the ones whove been more widely publicized. There are also unions like our sister union in South Africa South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) and other union locals in South Africa, Ireland and the UK. Not to mention numerous civil society organizations, churches, political parties that have also adopted the call. At the time of Resolution 50s passing, we were not met with support from our national union. They felt that BDS was an extreme position and out of line with our existing national position on Palestine. The only real difference between Resolution 50 and our existing national policy is that we called to take action vs. leaving our position on paper. The goals of our Resolutions are the same. Our current national policy supports ending the occupation, dismantling of the wall and a just peace based on international law, which includes Resolution 194 the right of return. Why our Resolution was so threatening is that it meant real mass education and a recognition that it is not enough to have a position on paper, solidarity means action. Solidarity means taking direction from Palestinian workers on what that action means. This direction is clear - Palestinian unions and other civil society organizations have put up a picket line and we must respect that line. At our recent CUPE National convention, the National union did commit to develop an education programme on Palestine over the next two years. We hope to get an educational module together within the next few months so we can start
visiting members across the country.
organIZIng
The primary focus of our work since the passing of Resolution 50 has been on developing the education plan. Since August of 2006, the international solidarity committee and other rank and file activists have been working with the Ontario division leadership and staff to develop materials and conduct trainings of activists to do educationals. We produced a booklet and question and answer sheet that we have been using for the education tour. The booklet outlines the basics of Israeli Apartheid, the links to South African Apartheid, how Canada and various multi-national corporations are involved in supporting Israeli Apartheid, why the growing bds movement and a list of resources links to growing research on goods and institutions to boycott. This material is available outside and on our website www.cupe.on.ca. There is also a CUPE BC booklet, produced by CUPE National called the Wall Must Fall. It is available on the CUPE BC website www.cupe.bc.ca. So far, weve distributed around 4,000 of our booklets with some locals taking on doing work themselves amongst their members or on university campuses in other parts of the province. There are about 25 active trained rank and file members who have been giving presentations since November 2006. We began with the Ontario executive board, and then started visiting committees, going to conferences, councils, locals, schools and conventions. Weve given dozens of presentations from Ottawa to North Bay to Niagara. Reaching places and spaces where many members have only ever been exposed to CNN or other mainstream corporate media coverage of situation in Palestine. For many members at these councils, these presentations have been the first presentations theyve ever had on an issue of International solidarity. And while some locals have decided not to have us come to do a presentation because they see the issue as divisive, the responses weve gotten from presentations we have given have been very positive. With many members asking what next? Now what? What do we boycott? We have been told by a number of staff and leaders that this education campaign has reached more
121
rank and file members than any other campaign in CUPE Ontario history. This is a testament to the hard work and commitment of the incredible activists in CUPE whove made this tour possible. One of the key things we face in doing these educationals has not been Zionist sentiment but a dominance of business unionism. By this I mean a way of seeing the union as a servicing agent that bargains and uphold collective agreements. This business union attitude treats international solidarity as charity or as peripheral to the day to day work of the union fighting the employer. We face this not just in doing international solidarity work but more generally with respect to political work. While activists and the divisions in CUPE work to challenge this by always connecting bargaining to privatization and other neo-liberal policies and practices, the view that the bargaining table is a space of workers and their employers divorced from their political context in which funding and policies are made, is unfortunately prevalent amongst some trade unionists. It is one of our biggest challenges as left trade unionist activists. The absurdity of business unionism is clearly shown when we look at the conditions of workers in Palestine and how this ties to struggles of workers here and throughout the world. The situation of Palestinian workers is often described as case of imprisoned labour. This is because of Israels almost total control over workers lives. These conditions, and the military occupation, are supported by and to the benefit of not only a variety of multi-national corporations but to capitalist interest in the region, not just the Israeli state. These conditions include: The issuing of work permits that tie Palestinian workers to their employers meaning that they often receive far below minimum wage, no access to health and safety regulation, most get no sick leave or vacation pay. And this is only if they can get work, a permit and can make it to work through the checkpoints. Israel plans to stop issuing these permits this year which will mean more than 30,000 people out of work who will have little choice but to work in the Industrial zones Israel has been establishing close to the wall surrounding the west bank and in Gaza.
122
Israel controls almost every aspect of economic life in the occupied territories including land, water, resources and also polices what Palestinians can and cannot grow. This means devastating conditions for farmers, many whom have been separated from their land by the apartheid wall and who often cant harvest any crops because their water is being diverted to Israel. Since 2001 432 Palestinian factories and 9785 small shops have been destroyed in the occupied territories. Even the Palestinian unions themselves are subject to Israeli institutions like the Histadrut. The Histadrut collects dues from Palestinian workers while denying any obligation to represent these workers. In 1995 the Histadrut agreed to remit these dues to the Palestinian General Trade Union Federation (PGFTU). The estimated dues owed total 1.5 billion shekels. So far 1 million have been remitted. I call the Histadrut, Israels labour organization, an Israeli institution because it is not a union in the sense that many of us we think of. The Histadrut played a key role in the colonization of Palestine as a pre-state formation that bought land, built factories, provided capital for infrastructure to provide jobs for Jewish settlers. It was founded upon a rejection of the possibility of a Jewish-Arab union federation. A quote by an early Histadrut leader David Hacohen captures the sentiment behind its foundation: The railway workers forget that the mission of the Hebrew workers who are part of the movement for settling Palestine, is not to be bothered by mutual assistance to Arab workers, but to assist in the fortification of the Zionist project on the land. The Israeli labour federation was built on an explicit rejection of worker solidarity adopting a racist, not class based framework for membership. The Histadrut today is still very close to the Israeli state. As we saw in the summer of 2006, the former President of the Histadrut Amir Peretz in his new role as Israeli Defence Minister called for the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon. They were also not only involved in supporting the apartheid regime in South Africa but even began a joint venture between one of its companies and an Afrikaner comLabour for PaLestine
pany in South Africa. Early last year Palestinian trade unions issued a call to boycott the Histadrut.
ImpacT
Developing the education tour on Resolution 50 has been a successful organizing experience in our union more generally in a number of ways. First, in the close links being made between union activists and community activists. Second, in the space it has opened in rethinking the possibilities of organizing within union spaces and confirming the importance of organizing rank and file workers. Third, in seeing community activists finding an interest in being involved or identifying with their union, which they otherwise would not be. Fourth, in facilitating the development of stronger relationships between activists within our union through our work trying to coordinate educationals in different cities. It has meant building a wider base of allies outside of Toronto. This is important not just for building the anti-apartheid campaign but also in mapping and developing a broader socialist base in our union. I say this because international solidarity activism tends to be a space where anti-imperialist socialists of different stripes congregate. For instance, left activists involved in anti-imperialist work and other solidarity work have begun to come together to form a socialist caucus within CUPE in Ontario. Fifth, union renewal agenda, the space Resolution 50 has mandated to do a province wide tour has been seen as a model by other activists for a new way to mobilize and train members around issues and campaigns. And over the past few months we have been working to broaden this base nationally, with the establishment of a Palestine solidarity network in CUPE on a national scale.
role oF The laBour movemenT
Historically, the labour movement has played a significant role in anti-imperialist struggles. And particularly, organized workers can play a different role than students or other community organizations in the power we have in our workplaces. This was clearly evidenced in the trade unionists involved in the solidarity movement against South African Apartheid in Canada and elsewhere. These activists
successfully organized full weeks of actions where Longshoreman refused to touch cargo going to and from South Africa and Postal Workers refused to handle mail to or from South Africa. We have a wealth of knowledge to gain from the solidarity movement against South African apartheid. At its height the trade union coalition involved in organizing against South African Apartheid (SACTU) reached 10,000 rank and file members a year, going to locals etc across the country. Well get there too. Right now our challenge is doing the education work as broadly as possible. Reaching rank and file members, going to locals, raising the issue everywhere we can. We know how powerful education on the situation in Palestine is and how not complicated the situation becomes once it is clearly laid out. While for us in CUPE Resolution 50 gave us substantial space to organize, our focus should not be on just passing Resolutions. Resolutions can help to do work at a broader level but our work can start as simply as in your workplace, with your coworkers. Maybe a lunch time presentation to a few other workers. An educational wherever we can get it, however small is important. Within our unions we can organize via human rights committees, social justice committees, womens committees, anti-racism committees, the list goes on. And if these dont exist in your union, then maybe there should and maybe they can be set up with the work of rank and file activists. Our energies should be to do grassroots education and build a solid base of rank and file activists, union to union. I dont think we need to waste any time or energy with how demobilized or controlled the structures may be or worry about them too much. It is important to remember that the movement against South African Apartheid was built in a climate that began with wide public support for apartheid and where Mandela was called a terrorist. The Canadian Labour Congress leadership and other union leaders in Canada began by supporting apartheid and trying to shut down spaces where rank and file activists organized. I raise this to keep in mind that the leadership follows and we should just go on and organize. We dont need their blessing.
123
Statement by Labour for Palestine in response to uS Anti-Boycott Statement

27 August 2007
n July 2007, a group of labour leaders from the US issued a statement opposing the growing international campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The statement was signed by a number of presidents from unions including the American Federation of Teachers, the American Postal Workers Union, the Communication Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the AFL-CIO1. It was widely discussed in the Israeli media, where it was presented as a response to this summers important set of boycott resolutions from unions in the UK. While the US statement can in no way be seen as representative of grassroots sentiment within the North American trade union movement, as labour activists involved in a variety of Canadian unions we feel it is important to respond to the array of mistruths and distortions it contains.
sInglIng ouT Israel or InTernaTIonal solIdarITy?
The US statement begins by endorsing a sentiment that is repeated adnauseum by pro-Israel activists: with the diverse range of oppressive regimes around the world about which there is almost universal silence, we have to question the motives of these resolutions that single out one country in one conflict. The first thing to note about this argument is that it contains a remarkable omission. Nowhere in the entire US statement is there mention of the
fact that the global campaign of BDS against Israel is a direct response to an urgent appeal signed in July 2005 by over 170 Palestinian worker, student, farmer, women, professional and refugee associations2 . This appeal was endorsed by every Palestinian trade union federation and is the broadest and most representative call for international solidarity ever made by Palestinian society. This point bears repeating. To portray the call for boycott as a simplistic and non-constructive approach originating from outside the region deliberately obfuscates the central point of the BDS campaign. The global trade union support for boycott resolutions is a direct response to an urgent appeal from Palestinian workers and their representatives. Palestinian workers and their representatives have set up a picket line and asked us not to cross. As North American trade unionists we have an extra responsibility to workers and their families struggling against unjust and oppressive regimes particularly when those regimes are fully supported by the US and Canadian governments. It is worth emphasizing that attempts to characterize the international trade union movement as singling out Israel appear ridiculous to anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the labour politics. If there is one issue particularly in North America that the labour movement has simply been silent on for too many decades it is the injustice committed against the Palestinian people. The courageous resolutions coming from the UK, Canada and
1 See http://www.jewishlaborcommittee.org/2007/07/statement_of_opposition_to_div.html) for a copy of this statement. 2 See http://www.stopthewall.org/downloads/pdf/BDSEnglish.pdf 124

countries in Europe are a long overdue response to a shameful blight on the history of the international trade union movement. Our fellow trade unionists in the US should take up this campaign with even more vigour, given the fact that the crimes committed against the Palestinian people by the Israeli government would simply not be possible without US diplomatic, financial and military support. The why-pick-on-Israelresponse to the boycott campaign is even more shocking to hear from the leaders of the largest and most influential union organizations in the US. What kind of trade unionists ever make the argument that we shouldnt support a labour struggle in one city because there are other workers also being oppressed in another? Or that a victory in one sector wont aid our struggles as workers in another? This is an essential ABC of international solidarity. It is an unfortunate truth that too many in the labour movement in the US and Canada have largely forgotten or deliberately buried the principle of an injury to one is an injury to all. Nevertheless, we must constantly uphold and stress this principle as essential to rebuilding our respective labour movements around a platform of militant, progressive solidarity and anti-imperialism. It is indeed striking that the US statement avoids all mention of even the word solidarity. We know that trade unionists in the US active around solidarity with Palestine are also those promoting other solidarity issues in the labour movement: opposition to war against Iraqi and Afghan peoples, solidarity with workers in Mexico, Columbia, Egypt, the Philippines, and others. These activists are also in the forefront on picket lines, organizing the unorganized, building support for undocumented workers and leading unauthorized strikes for social justice. The portrayal of BDS resolutions as narrowing the work of union activists is simply dishonest. A victory on one of these issues will inspire and mobilize activists across a broad range of social justice issues. This is our experience in Canada. It is certain to be the case elsewhere.
The BoTh sIdes argumenT
The US labour leaders statement also invokes the equally oft-repeated argument that we need to be balanced, look at all sides, avoid talking about the victims and victimizer, and so forth.
The statement claims: We note with increasing concern that virtually all of these [BDS] resolutions focus solely on objections to actions or policies of the Israeli government, and never on actions or policies of Palestinian or other Arab governments, parties or movements. We notice with increasing concern that characterization of the Palestinians as victims and Israel as victimizer is a staple of such resolutions. That there are victims and victimizers on all sides, and that many if not most of the victims of violence and repression on all sides are civilians, are essential items often not mentioned in these resolutions. This argument of balance is willfully blind and deliberately obfuscating of the central political issues at hand. There is an underlying cause to the ongoing misery and suffering that affects peoples in the area - and it affects some people more than others: The destruction of the Palestinian homeland in 1948; the creation of an exclusivist state that closely resembles the apartheid state of South Africa; the continued occupation, since 1967, of Palestinian lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in violation of UN resolutions; and the current encirclement, siege and economic strangulation of Gaza; these are the root problems of the conflict. Israel (with U.S. and British support) is the key perpetrator of these violations and it is morally disingenuous to deploy arguments of all sides equally guilty. These violations of the Palestinian peoples and nation must be addressed if a genuine and just peace is to be achieved in the region. Avoiding these issues and repeating vacuous calls that serve to equate the oppressed and their oppressors really means standing on the side of those in power. Of course civilians on all sides suffer from the ongoing state of war. But if you want to do something about that, then the fundamental causes of the problem need to be addressed. The global BDS movement attempts to do just that: by denying legitimacy to those who make a living justifying the current state of affairs; by refusing to work with organizations that support the oppression of an entire people; and by opposing investments that strengthen the occupation and domination of the Palestinian people. Peace can only be brought to the region by supporting peoples struggling for their freedom and social justice.
125
The negoTIaTIons myTh
The US labour leaders statement goes on to argue that peace requires the coming together of the parties. The calls for boycotts stand in the way of the necessary interaction between the warring communities. Such an argument is again similar to those used against workers engaged in struggle in their workplaces. How often have we been told that a strike hurts everyone, and if we sit down and negotiate then all sides will win? The reality is that over the last few decades the so-called peace: negotiations have simply served to cement Israels stranglehold over the Palestinian people. Following the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israels settlement construction in the West Bank doubled. Its system of military orders governing every aspect of Palestinian life was expanded to include an invidious control of Palestinian movement based on the notorious South African pass card system. Israel guaranteed the complete dependence of the Palestinian economy through control of all exports and imports, the construction of industrial zones to exploit cheap Palestinian labour, and the ultimate supply of all water, electricity, and fuel entering the Palestinian areas. The disconnected islands of territories that Palestinians have been made captive within have been rightly described as Bantustans. These Bantustans are now encircled by the Apartheid Wall and its associated network of military checkpoints, barbed wire fences and explosive mines. To claim that direct talks are a panacea for these fundamental problems overlooks the basic fact that negotiations are not neutral. The Israeli government wields tremendous military, economic and political superiority over the Palestinian people. It is supported by the most powerful states on the planet. The Palestinian people are living under Israeli occupation. In such a situation can it be anything more than self-evident that negotiations will favour the more powerful? These realities of power in the region - and its implications for the achievement of rights of self-determination and justice for Palestinians - must be acknowledged to truly demonstrate international solidarity. It means taking sides. As unionists we know that this means always
3 See http://www.stopthewall.org/boycott/bds/cupe.shtml 126
being in the front ranks supporting those suffering against exploitation and oppression. There are groups of people in Israel that respect the rights of Palestinians, maintain relations of solidarity and support for their struggle, and also support the BDS movement against Israeli apartheid. Much like the relations between the white South African supporters of the ANC and the liberation movement, the former fully supported the struggle and renounced the privileges and the superior status given to them by the racist regime. We are absolutely confident that the numbers and public profile of those courageous Israelis who stand with the Palestinian people will continue to increase alongside the growing strength of the global boycott movement.
IsraelI and palesTInIan unIons
What about the Palestinian and Israeli trade unions? Once again, the silence of the US labour leaders statement towards the call issued by all Palestinian trade union federations in February 2007 to boycott the existing Israeli union movement the Histadrut needs to be underlined3. The Histadrut represents a colonial-type union formation that supports the ongoing domination of the Palestinian people. It has worked hand-in-hand with the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for decades, and is thus an integral part of the exploitation of Palestinian labour. The former Histadrut leader, Amir Peretz, moved straight on to Israeli Defence Minister and in that position presided over the horrendous bombardment of Lebanon in 2006. As part of Olmerts government, he participated in the further extension of settlements in the West Bank and the building of the Apartheid Wall. The relationships that exist between the Histradrut and Palestinian labour institutions can in no honest way be described as constituting co-operative and mutually supportive activities.
W hy Bds?
The purpose of boycott and divestment resolutions is to force the Israeli government to fulfill basic principles of human rights. Governments around the world have clearly failed to do so, and, in contrast, are instrumental to supporting Israels
system of oppression. The BDS campaign message is direct: it simply says that we should have no part in supporting those who stand with and maintain Israeli apartheid; we refuse to participate with and strengthen those structures and demand that basic human rights are achieved for the Palestinian people. The boycott campaign is working. What other international initiative over the last few decades has so publicly expressed global dissatisfaction with Israeli policies against the Palestinian people and been so effective in forcing the Israeli government to respond? We know that we are having an impact when the Israeli government decides to set up a special government committee to combat the global boycott movement.4 We know that our voices are being heard when the British government must publicly come out against the UK trade union movement because of its position on Israeli human rights violations.5 When was the last time a western government has paid attention to a trade union resolution? The BDS movement is also a powerful consciousness raising tool. By raising the arguments and debates we help to educate workers around an issue that it is simply impossible to understand on a diet of the mainstream, corporate media. In Canada, for example, union activists in the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE Ontario) have
been conducting a year-long education campaign throughout dozens of union locals based on material produced by the union on BDS. Hundreds of workers have gone through these educational sessions. Discussions and groups supportive of Palestinian solidarity have formed in other unions. This would simply not have been possible without a resolution passed by CUPE in March 2006. Over the past fifty years much of the trade union movement in the US (and many in Canada as well) have an inglorious record in supporting the foreign policy efforts of successive pro-business governments. Nevertheless, today a growing number of trade unionists are rejecting that tradition and are instead looking to rebuild a truly internationalist workers movement. The BDS campaign is a powerful component of this movement for progressive union solidarity. As Canadian trade unionists, we are convinced that the global BDS campaign represents a reawakening of the true principles of the labour movement. The boycott movement was an important part of solidarity with black South Africans struggling against apartheid. We are certain that it will be an instrumental part of achieving justice and peace in the Middle East. We are proud to be active in this campaign in Canada. A great many rank-and-file labour activists in the US support this work. Their voices and solidarity will not be silenced.
4 See Government to Form Joint Task Force to counter U.K. Boycotts , Haaretz, 8 June 2007 http://www.haaretz. com/hasen/spages/868700.html 5 See British Embassy Tel Aviv, Howells Comments on Boycott of Israeli Goods http://www.britemb.org.il/ news/2007/howells180407.htm
127
Statement by New York City Labor Against the War 23 March 2008
uS Labor and Gaza
ew York City Labor Against the War joins the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions in denouncing Israels recent massacres in Gaza, the victims of which include at least 130 Palestinians - half of them civilians, including dozens of women and children since February 27.
W ho are The TerrorIsTs?
Israel claims that it is fighting terrorism in Gaza. This is the same hollow excuse with which the U.S. seeks to justify war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the erosion of civil liberties and labor rights at home. In fact, Israels attacks are part of a relentless, U.S.-orchestrated campaign of collective punishment -- with complicity of the corrupt Palestinian Authority -- to overthrow the democraticallyelected Hamas government. Long before its latest massacres, Israel had turned Gaza into the worlds largest open air prison, assassinating activists, and cutting-off essential goods and services to 1.5 million people. Only as a result did Hamas abandon a unilateral two-year truce. Even now, Israel seeks to derail Hamas truce offers by escalating arrests, home demolitions, settlements and murder in the West Bank -- from which no rockets have been fired. Despite media portrayals, this violence is overwhelmingly one-sided against Palestinians, who have no aircraft, artillery or tanks. Thus, while only one Israeli has been killed by rockets launched from Gaza since May 2007, Israels modern arsenal killed 60 Palestinians on March 1 alone. On February 29, Israels Deputy Defense Minis128
ter, Matan Valnai, threatened a bigger Shoah -- a reference to the Nazi Holocaust. As UN official John Dugard has pointed out, Palestinian rockets are not the cause, but the inevitable consequence, of Israeli state terror in Gaza, the slow-motion genocide which human rights organizations describe as worse than at any time since the beginning of the Israeli military occupation in 1967. Following the latest attacks, a Council on Foreign Relations expert explained, You have Palestinians who wouldnt necessarily support the violence but they are saying, Well, what choice do we have?
sIxTy years oF eThnIc cleansIng and genocIde
Israels war on Gaza can only be understood as an attempt to stamp out all resistance -- including nonviolent protest -- to Israels ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Indeed, most of Gazas population are survivors of Zionist expulsions since the Nakba (Catastrophe) of 1948, when 13,000 Palestinians were massacred, 531 towns and villages erased, 11 urban neighborhoods emptied, and more than 750,000 (85 percent) driven from 78 percent of their country. In 1967, Israel seized the remaining 22 percent of Palestine including East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza which, in violation of UN resolutions, remains under Israeli military rule. Today, as a result of these policies, at least 70 percent of the 10 million Palestinians are refugees -- the largest such population in the world. Despite other UN resolutions, Israel vows that it will never
allow them to return. Palestinians who managed to remain within the 1948 areas -- today, 1.4 million (or 20 percent of the population in Israel) -- are permanently separated from their families in exile, subject to more than 20 discriminatory laws, treated as a demographic threat, and threatened with mass expulsion. In East Jerusalem and the West Bank, 140 illegal, ever-expanding Jewish-only settlements and road systems dominate the water resources and control 40 percent of the land. Palestinians are confined, separated, denied medical treatment, and degraded by an 8-meter-high separation wall, pass laws, curfews and 600 military checkpoints. From 2000-2007, 4,274 Palestinians in these 1967 territories were killed, compared with 1,024 Israelis. The military has seized 60,000 political prisoners; it still holds and tortures 11,000. All of these conditions have dramatically worsened since the Annapolis peace conference in November.
tion over the oil-rich Middle East -- and beyond. In that capacity, Israel was apartheid South Africas closest ally. After 9/11, it helped intensify the demonization of Arabs and Muslims. It has 200 nuclear weapons, but helped manufacture evidence of Iraqi WMD. With U.S. weapons and support, it invaded Lebanon in 2006. Together, these wars and occupations have killed, maimed and displaced millions of people, thereby creating the worlds largest humanitarian crisis. Now, Israel is the cutting edge of threats against Syria and Iran. In other words, oppression and resistance in Palestine is the epicenter of U.S.-Israeli war throughout the Middle East. These stakes are reflected in the ferocity of Israels attacks against Gaza.
laBors role
us sponsorshIp
Israels war on Palestine depends completely on U.S. money, weapons and approval. Since 1948, Israel the top foreign aid recipient has received at least $108 billion from the U.S. government. In the past ten years alone, U.S. military aid was $17 billion; over the next decade, it will be $30 billion. Israels recent assault on Gaza was endorsed by a Congressional vote of 404-1. Democratic and Republican presidential candidates fall over themselves to offer more of the same. On March 22, Dick Cheney reassured Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Americas. . . . commitment to Israels right to defend itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other threats, and that the U.S. and Israel are friends special friends. This special friendship means that, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is U.S. aircraft, cluster bombs and bullets that kill and maim on behalf of the occupiers. Just one of many targets was the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions headquarters in Gaza City, destroyed by F-16s on February 28. Such support bolsters Israels longstanding role as watchdog and junior partner for U.S. dominaLabour for PaLestine
In Palestine, South Africa, Britain, Canada and other countries, labor has condemned Israeli Apartheid. Workers in the United States pay a staggering human and financial price, including deepening economic crisis, for U.S.-Israeli war and occupation. But through a combination of intent, ignorance and/or expediency, much of labor officialdom in this country often without the knowledge or consent of union members is an accomplice of Israeli Apartheid. Some 1,500 labor bodies have plowed at least $5 billion of union pension funds and retirement plans into State of Israel Bonds. In April 2002, while Israel butchered Palestinian refugees at Jenin in the West Bank, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney was a featured speaker at a belligerent National Solidarity Rally for Israel. In 2006, leadership of the American Federation of Teachers embraced Israels war on Lebanon. These same leaders collaborate with attempts by the Jewish Labor Committee ( JLC) to silence Apartheid Israels opponents many of whom are Jewish. In July 2007, top officials of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win signed a JLC statement that condemned British unions for even considering the nonviolent campaign for boycott, divestment and
129
sanctions against Israel. Just days ago, the JLC and the leadership of UNITE-HERE bullied a community organization in Boston into revoking space for a conference on Zionism and the Repression of Anti-Colonial Movements. Even the leadership of U.S. Labor Against the War, which receives funding from several major unions, remains adamantly silent about U.S. government, corporate and labor support for Israeli Apartheid. Labor leaders complicity parallels infamous AFL-CIA support for U.S. war and dictatorship in Vietnam, Latin America, Gulf War I, Afghanistan and elsewhere. It strengthens the U.S.-Israel war machine and labors corporate enemies, reinforces racism and Islamophobia, and makes a mockery of international solidarity.
a necessary sTand
More than forty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. came under intense public attack for opposing the Vietnam war. Even within the Civil Rights Movement, some dismissed his position too divisive and unpopular. In his famous speech at the Riverside Church
in April 1967, Dr. King answered these critics by pointing out that silence is betrayal, and that the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today . . . [is] my own government. At the National Labor Leadership Assembly for Peace in November 1967, he reiterated the most basic principles of labor solidarity: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere ... Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. These principles are no less relevant today. Yes, the Israel lobby seeks to silence opponents of Israeli Apartheid. All the more need for trade unionists to break that silence by speaking out against Israeli military occupation, for the right of Palestinian refugees to return, and for the elimination of apartheid throughout historic Palestine. Therefore, we reaffirm our support for an immediate and total: 1. End to U.S. military and economic support for Israel. 2. Divestment of business and labor investments in Israel. 3. Withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces from the Middle East.
130
A reply to Bnai Brith Manifesto denouncing CuPe-ontarios Boycott of Israel
n 31 May 2006, Bnai Brith issued a statement denouncing the decision by CUPE-Ontario to support the global campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israeli apartheid. The Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA) has prepared this response to the myths and allegations raised by Bnai Brith. Bnai Brith: We support the State of Israel, a sister democracy to Canada, the only country in theMiddle East founded on the rule of law. CAIA: The state of Israel continues to violate international law through the construction of its Wall through Palestinian territory, through its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and its denial of Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes and lands. Israel remains the only country in the UN general assembly with more than one class of citizenship (through the Population Registry Act) where Jews are granted preferential access to land, and water resources, as well as social services. The United Nations Committee Against Torture has repeatedly condemned Israel for its continued use of torture against Palestinian civilians. In 1997, Amnesty International noted, Israel is the only country on earth where torture and ill-treatment are legally sanctioned. Over 9,000 Palestinians are currently held as political prisoners by Israel, including 400 Palestinian children. One thousand of these detainees are held without charge or trial; the equivalent of 8,000 Canadians held under Security Certificates. To describe these practices thoroughly documented by UN bodies, and international, Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations as the rule of law is to mock the basic principles of justice.
Bnai Brith: We applaud Israel as a vibrant society that respects the civil, religious and cultural rights of all its citizens. CAIA: Israel consistently denies its non-Jewish citizens equal access to social services and the material resources of the state. Palestinian citizens of Israel constitute one-fifth of the Israeli population yet it is illegal for any individual or party to run for the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) if they do not support the Jewish character of the state. Israeli Knesset members have openly advocated the forceful expulsion of Palestinian citizens. In Israel, 93 percent of the land is earmarked for Jewish control and development through state ownership, the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli Lands Authority. In apartheid South Africa, 87 percent of the land was reserved for whites. The 2002 state budget, for example, allocates around $30 per person of the housing ministry budget to Arab communities compared with $3,100 per person in Jewish ones. Over 100,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel are from unrecognized villages, residential areas that have existed for hundreds of years but are deliberately refused recognition by the Israeli government. These citizens are denied any basic services such as running water, electricity, proper education and health services, and access roads. In May 2006, the Israeli Supreme Court effectively banned marriage between Israelis and Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a decision that the Israeli daily Haaretz termed shameful. Until recently, the Bank of Israel and the state electricity company did not hire anyone who was Arab. Furthermore, Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip, thus denying millions of Palestinians their civil, religious, and cultural rights
131
through the imposition of military checkpoints, through the destruction of mosques, churches, and places of worship, the killing of civilians and the targeting of Palestinian political institutions and parties. Palestinians are identified by different colored identity cards and license plates and are forbidden from traveling on certain roads. Movement of Palestinians between towns and villages is controlled by Israeli permits and checkpoints. These measures should be described as they are: examples of Israeli apartheid. The main thrust of the CUPE Ontario decision 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. It is striking that the various attacks against the CUPE Ontario resolution refuse to address this theme. Does Bnai Brith support or oppose Israeli apartheid? Bnai Brith: We oppose the CUPE-Ontario boycott of Israel, as inherently biased and discriminatory, betraying a politically-charged agenda. CAIA: The CUPE-Ontario resolution calls for an education campaign and for the respect of international law. The resolution specifically targets Israeli practices already found to be in violation of international law, i.e., discriminatory citizenship rights, the Wall, and self-determination for Palestinians. Yes, CUPE-Ontario does stand on the side of those who are oppressed and who are struggling for their rights. Indeed, this should be fundamental to the principles of the labour movement. CUPE-Ontario should be applauded for taking this stand in support of justice, human rights and international solidarity. Bnai Brith: We understand full well that such boycotts, from wherever they emanate, do nothing to advance true peace in the Middle East, but rather create a roadblock to meaningful resolution of the conflict, and; We expose such boycotts as thinly veiled attempts to delegitimize the existence of the State of Israel and its right to protect its citizens against terror and violence.
CAIA: During the fight against Apartheid in South Africa, international sanctions and boycotts were instrumental part in forcing the regime to change. South African archbishop and Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu has likened the Israeli treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of black people under South African apartheid. Trade unions, churches, social groups, NGOs, and political parties all over the world joined in boycotts, at the request of South African anti-apartheid groups. It should not be forgotten that, at the time, Israel provided major political, financial and military support to the South African Apartheid regime. Two days after the CUPE Ontario resolution 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 Israels discriminatory educational system. These two resolutions represent the latest in a snowballing movement to isolate Israeli apartheid in the manner of South African apartheid. In July 2005, over 170 Palestinian trade unions, NGOs and religious groups issued a call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israeli apartheid. A long list of institutions, city councils, religious organizations, political parties and unions have since endorsed and acted on this call. In March 2006, 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 Englands 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.
132
The central obstacle to peace in the region is Israeli apartheid. We must work to end this apartheid system if we are to provide justice and hope to all in the area. CUPE-Ontario should be congratulated for taking this courageous stand in support of human rights, and openly supporting the global movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israeli apartheid. Bnai Brith: We warn that the Right of Return demanded by CUPE-Ontario would ultimately lead to the destruction of the Jewish State. CAIA: In 1948, with the founding of the Israeli state, 80 percent 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. Article 13 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states,Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state; and everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country. The right of return of refugees is not a matter of negotiation. It is an inalienable right of all people. Currently, Israel stands in direct violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, a document of which Israel is a signatory. The right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and land is not simply a legal question. Most significantly, it points to the fact that we should oppose any state that operates on the basis of one religious or ethnic exclusivity. 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. Bnai Brith: We condemn the highjacking of CUPE-Ontarios core mandate by individuals who have marginalized and ignored the views and values of union members who do not support the prevailing anti-Israel mindset
CAIA: The CUPE Ontario convention was attended by over 900 delegates democratically elected by CUPE Locals all over the province. All resolutions were provided in written form to the delegates in the months before the convention took place. The boycott, divestment and sanctions resolution was put forward by the CUPE Toronto District Council as well as other CUPE Locals. Many delegates spoke in favor of the resolution at different points during the convention proceedings. It is ironic, indeed, that an organization unrelated to CUPE-Ontario should undertake a massive lobby campaign to get CUPE Ontario to revoke a decision made at its highest decision making body, and in the process accuse the union of being highjacked. The Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid affirms its support for union democracy and decision making. Bnai Brith: We note CUPE-Ontarios failure to condemn the gross abuses perpetrated against trade unionists in many Arab countries, and question its failure to stand in solidarity with its union colleagues elsewhere, as is surely its sacred responsibility. CAIA: Once again, Bnai Brith belies its ignorance of what actually happened at the CUPE-Ontario Convention and of the mandate of CUPE. An emergency resolution was unanimously adopted in support of pro-reform and pro-democracy activists in Egypt, many of whom have been subject to extra-judicial jailing and torture. The Convention repeatedly underlined the importance of international solidarity as central to building a strong union movement in Canada that learns and co-operates with other struggles. This theme was also stressed in the Action Plan for 2006 adopted by the convention. An international solidarity forum organized by the CUPE International Solidarity Committee at the Convention discussed struggles in Haiti, Colombia, Palestine and the situation of people in Canada jailed under security certificates. Invited guests addressed the convention on the situation in Venezuela and Bolivia. CUPE members spoke at and participated in a demonstration in support of refugee rights in Canada.
133
CUPE-Ontario has a proud tradition of solidarity with international unions, and support for the international standards of human rights, environmental practices, and labour conditions. To suggest otherwise is to engage in deliberate obfuscation of CUPEs mandate and practices. Bnai Brith: We dispute the right of CUPE-Ontario with its declared anti-Israel agenda to represent itself as a credible body to undertake public education on the Arab-Israeli conflict CAIA: CUPE-Ontario has many representatives and members who are extremely knowledgeable of the practices and experience of Israeli apartheid. This includes a large number of Palestinians and Jews who support the anti-apartheid movement. CUPE-Ontario also has a wide network of academics, fellow unionists and individuals who support this anti-apartheid stance and are experienced in conducting public education campaigns. Other CUPE divisions, such as CUPE BC, have already produced high quality educational booklets on matters such as the apartheid Wall.
Bnai Brith: We call on citizens of good will to demand that CUPE-Ontario repeal its boycott which stands in stark contradiction to the established foreign policies and trade agreements set by the Government of Canada, which represents the Canadian people CAIA: The position of the Canadian government is clearly in support of Israeli apartheid. Canada was the first country in the world to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority, the elected representatives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Canada has a free trade agreement with Israel that helps to sustain and reward Israeli apartheid. This resolution is one more indication that a growing number of Canadians clearly do not support these policies. All citizens of good will should be concerned, and should feel free to voice their concern with Israeli apartheid, individually or collectively, through resolutions in unions, churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques, through community meetings, letters to the editor, political lobbying and public demonstrations.
134
Campaigns and further resources

Bds campaIgns In canada
buy from this bookchain (and support alternative independent bookstores) until the owners publicly cut all financial ties in support of the Israeli military. See www.caiaweb.org for more details.
There are some simple steps that you can take to become active in the BDS campaign in Canada: Join local groups that campaign for Palestinian rights and in support of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israeli apartheid. Work within your school, university and union to pass resolutions against Israeli apartheid and in support of boycott and divestment. Lobby your member of parliament to end the charity status of the pro-Israel institutions and to cancel all agreements between Canada and Israel. Dont buy Israeli products and complain to shop owners when you see these products on the shelf. Educate your friends, family and workmates about Israels policies and the Palestinian struggle for justice and return. Organize a film screening, discussion group or workshop! Feel free to utilize the material developed by CUPE Ontario at cupe.on.ca Some of the local boycott and solidarity campaigns in Canada are:
campaIgn agaInsT The charITaBle sTaTus oF JeWIsh naTIonal Fund ( JnF canada)
Canada gives tax deductible status to the Canadian arm of the Jewish National Fund ( JNF). The JNF owns land in Israel, which it is mandated not to sell or lease to non-Jews. By restricting the control of land to people from only one ethnic group, the JNF is a key institution supporting Israeli apartheid. Funds from the Canadian JNF established a park over the ruins of three Palestinian villages (Amwas, Yalu and Belt Nuba) demolished and ethnically cleansed by Israel in 1967. This park is called Canada Park and the 10,000 original inhabitants like all Palestinian refugees - are barred from returning to live on their land. The Canadian government helps to subsidize this racism and ethnic cleansing by giving charity status to the JNF. See caiaweb.org for more details.
campaIgn For serIously Free speech and In deFence oF mordecaI BrIemBerg
campaIgn agaInsT chapTers IndIgo Books and musIc
In 2007, activists in Toronto launched a campaign against Chapters Indigo, Canadas largest book chain, because of their majority owners financial support for Heseg The Lone Soldier Foundation. Heseg is a scholarship program that supports individuals from around the world who want to go and serve in the Israeli military and was founded by the majority owners of Chapters Indigo. The campaign against Chapters Indigo asks people not to
In 2008, the CanWest media empire launched an attack against respected Vancouver solidarity activist, Mordecai Briemberg. Briemberg is facing a lawsuit from CanWest related to a parody of the local CanWest paper, the Vancouver Sun, which was circulated in satirical criticism of the papers skewed coverage of Israel/Palestine. While Briemberg was not involved in the production of the paper he found it amusing and reportedly picked up a few copies to hand out. He has now been targeted for retaliation through the courts. Further details available at www.seriouslyfreespeech.ca.
135
Campaign agaInsT IsraelI W Ines In B.c In 2008, the Israeli government announced plans to rebrand its 60 years of dispossession and ethnic cleansing. In British Columbia, the focus of this rebranding is the promotion of wines under an Israeli label from the Galil Mountain Winery, the Golan Heights Winery and the Dalton Win-
ery. These wines are produced from grapes grown on occupied Arab land, and many of the wineries are located on occupied Syrian land in the Golan Heights. As the South African campaigners said many years ago outside BC liquor stores, then as now, DONT DRINK WITH APARTHEID!! See www.cpavancouver.org/
Further Resources
Books
The Wall Must Fall, CUPE BC International Solidarity Committee, 2007 (www.cupe.bc.ca) Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, by Uri Davis. New York: Zed Books, 2003 A History of Modern Palestine, by Ilan Pappe. Cambridge University Press, 2004 The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, by Ilan Pappe, Oneworld Publications, 2006 Image and Reality in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, by Norman G. Finkelstein. Verso: London, 2003 The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish-Arab Divide, by Susan Nathan, Bantam Dell Publishers Group, 2005 Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, by Tanya Rheinhart. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002 The Myths of Zionism, by John Rose. London: Pluto Press, 2004 Palestine, by Joe Sacco. Seattle: Gary Groth and Kim Thompson, 2002 The Question of Palestine, by Edward Said. New York: Vintage, 1979, rpt. 1992 The One State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock, by Virginia Tilley. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005
WeBsITes

Alternative Information Center, Jerusalem: BADIL Palestinian refugee NGO:
http://www.alternativenews.org http://www.electronicintifada.net http://www.badil.org http://www.btselem .org http://www.canadiandimension.com http://caiaweb.org/ http://www.icahd.org http://www.stopthewall.org
Electronic Intifada regular news and analysis: BTselem Israeli human rights organization: Canadian Dimension commentary and analysis: Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid BDS campaign in Toronto: Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions: Grassroots Campaign to Stop the Wall:
136
Labour for Palestine is an invaluable resource in the Palestinian peoples struggle for justice. Packed with information, this reader provides historical background, political analysis of the current situation, and arguments in defense of the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. A must read for all unionists and social activists.
A publication of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid $15 endapartheid@riseup.net
w w w. c a i awe b . o r g
Top: CAIA rally & march Toronto February 2007 Bottom: Nakba commemoration rally May 2008
Photos by Robert J. Allison

L4P Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

L4P Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labour

Labour for Palestine

Labour for Palestine

A publication of the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid www.caiaweb.org

The Early History of Colonialism in Palestine: 1880-1967 ......................................................

SeCtIon four: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ..............................................................

FAQ about Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ................................................................. 83-84

Campaigns and further resources ........................................................................................... 135

In July 2005, over 170 Palestinian organizations

Labour for PaLestine

background and analysis

The early history of Colonialism in Palestine: 1880-1967

Labour for PaLestine

SECTION ONE: Background

SECTION ONE: Background

Labour for PaLestine

The west Bank and Gaza Strip

Daily life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Labour for PaLestine

Palestine before 1948

Occupied West Bank and Gaza 1967

The Wall 2005

Labour for PaLestine

SECTION ONE: Background

Palestinian villages depopulated in 1948 and 1967 and razed by Israel

Tel Aviv Jaffa

Tel Aviv Jaffa

Labour for PaLestine

An abridged timeline of the history of Palestine

1968-1970 1987-1993 1993

SECTION ONE: Background

Labour for PaLestine

2002 2004 2005

Comparisons of South African and Israeli Apartheid

SECTION ONE: Background

Labour for PaLestine

Labour for PaLestine

SECTION ONE: Background

South African Apartheid

SECTION ONE: Background

Labour for PaLestine

South African Apartheid

Labour for PaLestine

South African Apartheid

Jerusalem, Jan 6, 2007. Photo: Freepal

SECTION ONE: Background

Labour for PaLestine

South African Apartheid

Labour for PaLestine

SECTION ONE: Background

Zionism, the Israeli Labour Movement and Palestinian Workers

Zionism: false Messiah

socIalIsm and The F IghT agaInsT anTI-semITIsm

Israeli Labour Movement and Palestinian Workers

ZIonIsm: leFT and rIghT

Israeli Labour Movement and Palestinian Workers

The road To al-nakBah

SECTION TWO: Zionism, the

Israeli Labour Movement and Palestinian Workers

Labour for PaLestine

SECTION TWO: Zionism, the

Israeli Labour Movement and Palestinian Workers

The histadrut and Settler-Colonialism: The early Years