Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) /UK  welcome a move by Unite to back the BDS campaign.  


July 13, 2019 - In a major victory for the Boycott HP campaign, the second largest British and Irish trade union, with 1.2 million members, Unite the Union, joined the campaign. Unite joins Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV), the Netherland’s largest trade union, with 1.1 million members, which dropped HP as a partner in their offers to their members in April. The Boycott HP campaign and the trade unions concerns’ focus on HP and HPE’s provision of equipment and technology for Israel’s army and police, and for the population database that Israel uses to enforce its system of racial segregation.

Unite, in its Executive Council meeting in June, passed a resolution to end buying of HP products and replace existing ones. Unite the Union noted this as a step in the direction of setting their standards for solidarity to global campaigns for justice and support for all workers.

Continue Reading @ BDS.

Unite, UK's Second Largest Union, Will #BoycottHP

Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) /UK  welcome a move by Unite to back the BDS campaign.  


July 13, 2019 - In a major victory for the Boycott HP campaign, the second largest British and Irish trade union, with 1.2 million members, Unite the Union, joined the campaign. Unite joins Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV), the Netherland’s largest trade union, with 1.1 million members, which dropped HP as a partner in their offers to their members in April. The Boycott HP campaign and the trade unions concerns’ focus on HP and HPE’s provision of equipment and technology for Israel’s army and police, and for the population database that Israel uses to enforce its system of racial segregation.

Unite, in its Executive Council meeting in June, passed a resolution to end buying of HP products and replace existing ones. Unite the Union noted this as a step in the direction of setting their standards for solidarity to global campaigns for justice and support for all workers.

Continue Reading @ BDS.

15 comments:

  1. Sorry I should have referenced as follows:

    David Hirsch "Contemporary Left Antisemitism" pp.100-01 Routledge 2018

    ReplyDelete
  2. What this referecne concerns is the following:

    BDS was not conceived or begun in Palestine by the 'oppressed'. It was initiated and invented by British people who wished to boycott Israel. They went to Palestine between 2003 and 2005, and they persuaded Palestinian activists of the usefulnss of BDS as a strategy. They explained that the best way to activate this strategy was to create the impression that the BDS call originated in Palestine as the authentic cry of the oppressed for solidarity. Later, the same activists helped to set up the British Campaign for the Universities of Palestine and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PCACB).

    On 25th May 2016 at an event at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) London the anti-Zionist academic Ilan Pappe confirmed that the 'call' for BDS did not originate in Palestine. In a discussion chaired by SOAS faculty member Ruba Salih, video-recorded bb the Zionist activist David Collier, Pappe makes a 'despderate call for the Palestinians to lead us' if only the Palestinians would do what wew want them to do what we want them to do. When Ruba Salih interupts him to say 'Well the Palestinians launched BDS in 2005, Pappe responds by saying 'It's not true but it is important' to say yes 'for historical records' (Hirsch, pp100-01.

    Intellectula colonialism or what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry - True as your claim may well be, regardless of its provenance, it hardly detracts from a campaign along the grounds of the international boycott of White South Africa. International solidarity against racist, brutal or apartheid regimes is a worthwhile venture.

      Delete
  3. Small example, went to Cliftonville's last home European match,there was a table there with bds activists. Was given a flier explaining that Puma is a sponsor of and manufacters the Israeli state soccer team kit.

    They politely asked me to boycott Puma and ask cliftonville to stop using them.

    As I only get occassionaly usually buy a bit of merchandise. The top that was on the agenda was not bought.

    Had no idea about the link between Puma and Israel, do now and can act accordingly.

    Ps. On sporting note well done to Englands World cup Cricket team- unreal days entertainment

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown - if you post again can you sing off with some name that allows you to be distinguished from the next unknown who might comment? Whatever you choose - you can continue to post as Unknown but if you stick some handle on it, it will help.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anthony

    By all means boycott settlement goods and Caterpillar products as that company has been involved in the destruction of the homes of Palestinian activists on the West Bank. Keep the focus on the settlements and occupation of the West Bank but please do not boycott ideas, culture and learning.

    Comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa fall down on these grounds:

    For in the words of Benjamin Pogrund, formerly well-known journalist on the Rand Daily Mail who reported on the sufferings of South African blacks inflicted by apartheid and who was imprisoned and 'banned' by the apartheid regime, 'there is no comparison between Israel and apartheid because:

    "The Arabs of Israel are full citizens. Crucially, they have the vote and Israeli Arab MPs sit in Parliament. An Arab judge sits on the country's highest court; an Arab is chief surgeon at a leading hospital; an Arab commands a brigade of the Israeli asrmy; others head university departments. Arab and Jewish babies are born in the same delivery room, attended by the same doctors and nurses. ... Jews and Arabs travel on the same trains, taxis and buses. Universities, theatres, cinemaas, beaches and restaurants are open to all."

    John Strawson - a legal scholar involved in political, scholarly and practical solidarity with the Palestinians for decades - points out:

    "The whole argument about South Africa in the apartheid years was quite exceptional. The racial classification board declared your race at birth, which would determine where you live, what school you would attend, what job you could have, what wages you would earn, whether you could vote and what papers you would carried. This does not happen in Israel"

    Apartheid was a unique evil because of its racial classificatory system, because it ensured that one's race at birth dictated one's future life course and was supported by a panopoly of repression from pass laws to banning and the death penalty. Simply saying that Israel is like apartheid, or is apartheid affords no space for nuanced analysis that studies similarities and differences between one and thde other.

    (Hirsh: pp.127-28)

    Israeli opponents of the Occupation such as the late Uri Avnery and Amos Oz argue that the BDS campaign will only strengthen the Israeli Jewish nationalist Right.

    Like Kashmir, Cyprus and Ireland, the Israel-Palestine conflict concerns competing nationalisms in a particular territory. It is a conflict that seemed to have ended in the Oslo peace accords in the 1990s which were sadly and successfully undermined by extremists on both sides. Only genuine dialogue, sharing of common spaces (especially those in the educational spere - sound familiar) and shared understanding of and empathy with the sufferings of both sides. The BDS campaign, originating as it does with the anti-Israel agenda of certain British academics and which created an increasingly cold house for students and academics with Israeli connections in unions like Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) See Hirsh pp.95-134 can never help to achieve such outcomes.



    ReplyDelete
  6. Barry - the problem with citing opinion is that there is always a different opinion.


    In 2017 the Washington Post reports that:

    If being an apartheid state means committing inhumane acts, systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, then Israel is guilty, a United Nations panel has determined in a new report.

    South Africa's Israel Apartheid Week is about gathering support for the call to support a global boycott: Michia Moncho, Israeli Apartheid Week National Convenor, says:

    The aim of IAW is to raise awareness of Israel’s apartheid policies towards the indigenous Palestinians and serves to garner support for the non-violent Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel campaign, which seeks to bring an end to Israel’s apartheid policies and violations of international law.

    There is a widespread view out there that Israel is an apartheid state, the view is very strong in South Africa where a thing or two is known about apartheid.

    The terrorist state can not be absolved from its terrorism by focussing only on the West Bank and settlements. The terrorist state itself is responsible for that and as such can be met with a boycott similar to that of the no less heinous South African regime.

    Whether it will work or not is another matter. Ideas are something I oppose being boycotted; ideas can in fact be used to challenge the terrorist state. But I do feel no entertainer should perform in Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anthony

    Everyone has and is entitled to their opinions. Their validity rests on evidence and on the Popperian test of falsifiability.

    There may very well be a widespread view that Israel ia an apartheid state and that view may well be strong in South Africa; it is your opinion that Israel is as bad as the South African apartheid that does mean that it is supported by historical and contemporary facts. Within Israel there is not and never has been the equivalence to the Group Areas Act, Population Registration Act, an Immorality Act outlawing cross-racial sexual relations, segregagted public amenities or pass laws. Nor does the death penalty exist in Israel.

    You call Israel "the terrorist state"; your opinion which you are entitled to. That description also would apply to almost every state in the MENA region and one or two of these states have avid defenders among BDS supporters/"pro-Palestinian advocates. But let us not stray too far into ad hominem territory.

    Back to the "terrorist state" label; we are all familiar with the dictum that one person's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. I personally do not deal in such binary distinctions.

    If the boycotters want merely an end to the West Bank occupation and violations of international law therein, I would have some sympathy with them. It should be targetted sanctions relating specifically to Israeli control of the West Bank i.e. Caterpillar, settlement goods etc that should be the focus of a boycott campaign.

    The trouble is that BDS has a third demand; the Right to Return of all six million Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Quite apart from the sheer impractability of this proposal (is anyone proposing that the 12 million ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe after World War II be allowed back to their countries of origin?); it will always fail because no Israeli government will ever countenance it as it would mean the end of a Jewish majority state. I suspect that the BDS campaign know that and this leads me to suspect that they actually want an end to the State of Israel. Can they not be open about their real goal if that is the case.

    It was the goal of the Anti-Apartheid Movement to abolish race as a legislative category in South Africa and to institute a democratic state in which all its citizens had the franchise. It did not seek black majority rule but the accommodation of all racial and tribal groups. It did not seek to abolish the South African state or to alter its boundaries (apart from abolishing the Bantustans). Sports boycotts were particularly effective tools because of the centrality of sport in Afrikaneer culture and due to the segregated nature of sports like rugby and cricket (none of which applies in the case of Israeli sports).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Barry - which simply means Israel and South Africa practiced Apartheid in different ways. Just as totalitarianism is practiced in different ways by totalitarian states. There is absolutely nothing wrong in wanting a democratic state that does not have a guaranteed majority. The right of return is an impractical demand but that does not negate the validity of the demand for no Jewish state. If Israel continues to exist it can do so as a state with a democratic majority. I never advocate its destruction. Abortion doesn't work after birth. Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state, as is Syria. How we can fail to define Israel as one defies consistency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think the US and UK qualify as 'terrorist states' or is it only whom they decree as terrorist states that qualifies? Just wondering.

      Delete
    2. They qualify - we need look no further than Yemen

      Delete
  9. Barry - moreover, it seems everyone is not entitled to their opinion - we have the German lower house declaring BDS anti-Semitic - hardly a moral authority on the matter. The IHRA tries to label people anti-Semitic for seeing comparisons between Israeli crimes against humanity and Nazi crimes against humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anthony

    Some breaking news - Jeremy Corbyn has launched a web page for Labour Party members on how to recognise and oppose antisemitism. It specific ally recognises the Zionism as a movement for Jerwish national self-determination and the legitimacy of the State of Israel while also stating that there are various forms of Zionism. It recognises that most UK Jews identify with Israel and explicitly opposes any Nazi-Israeli comparisons and condemns conspiracy theories around Israel being behind 9/11, the power of the Rothschilds and Jewish control of the media. It does not autoamtically equate antisemitism and antizionism, it does acknowledge that attacks on Israel and Zionism can be synonymous with attacks on Jews. It is fully supportive of Palestinian rights as one would expect and specifically supports the two-state solution. If this is what Corbyn believes and is signed up to now then I take my hat off to him because all of the above are what the JLM have been lobbying for.

    Exactly why would the German lower house not be an authority on antisemitism?

    The very raison d'etre of Israel is that it is a national homeland for Jews. It is explicitly a Jewish and democrtatic state in its origins. Certainly the potential for it to become an exclusivist ethnostate is there but potententiality does not equate to actuality. You state that the demand for no Jewish state (the demand of Arab rejectionists since 1945) is valid but then you say that if Israel continues to exist it can do so as a state with a democratic majority. I am not sure I follow your logic. But to reject the idea of a Jewish state at its inception is to fail to take into account the transformative effect on the Jewish people of the Shoah/Holocaust the prospect of which made, in the words of none other than Leon Trotsky, made the idea of Israel/Jewish homeland a "historical necessity".

    Comparisons between Zionism/Israel and Nazism, between Israel and apartheid era South Africa; the idea that Israel is a Western colonial implant (which disregards the the history of two millenia of European Christian antisemitism which climaxed in the Shoah) or that it is a racist ethnostate was the staple of Soviet antizionist, pan-Arab nationalis and latterly Islamist antisemitic propoganda.

    I am no apologist for what Israel does in the West Bank or for the current Israeli govt or govts past but comparing the totality of the Nazi and South African apartheid edifice of unique evil and horror with Israel as the George Galloways and Ken Livingstones do, do nothing for the cause of Palestinian Arab rights and statehood. The Israeli-Palestine conflict is one of competing national claims to a piece of territory that used to belong to the Ottoman Empire not part of a Manichean struggle between Western imperialism and the global South despite the persuasive efforts of so many on the far left to do so.

    Lastly, Saudi Arabia and Syria, as brutal autocracies, act with total impunity because there is no independent legisature, judiciary, civil society instiutions or free media to hold these regimes to account. Israel, as a professed democracy, needs to be held accountable to the standards of other professed democracies e.g. US, UK, EU member states etc (as should Duerte Harry and his homicidal war on drugs which kills three year-old children and then is justified on the grounds that "shit happens".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Barry – it seems an act of political desperation rather than a genuinely held position on Corbyn’s part to oppose Nazi-Israeli comparisons when both the Israelis and Nazis have perpetrated crimes against humanity and war crimes, which is where the point of comparison should be. I will continue to draw such comparisons and not feel in the slightest anti-Semitic because of it. Call these things by their name. It does not matter if the majority of Syrians living in Britain identify with the Syrian state – it remains a terrorist state. No different for the Jews living in Britain. If they identify with a terrorist state, that is the problem, not the people who point it out.
    If people believe that the Israelis were behind 9/11, it does not make them anti-Semitic, just deranged conspiracy theorists. If they believe Jews were behind it, that would make them anti-Semitic.
    It could hardly equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism: one position is intrinsically bad and the other good. There are various forms of Zionism just as there are various forms of fascism – there were even various forms of Nazism. It is fine to believe all forms of the three are blights.
    Attacks on Israel often are attacks on Jews and in that instance are without doubt anti-Semitic. But attacks on Israeli state terrorism cannot be reduced to that or explained away as that.
    German history in the field of anti-Semitism would make me doubt its credentials. Germany had a long history of anti-Semitism that predated Hitler. He tapped into a reservoir of it rather than created it. The Germans have tried to overcompensate for their past crimes against Jewish people and it all sounds like the cardinals apologising for the child rape and telling everybody else how horrible it is to be child rapists. Sounds hollow. Institutional condemnations of anti-Semitism from the Germans just don’t cut it for me. The very fact that they would define BDS as Anti-Semitism tells us a quite a bit.

    I do not believe there should be any national homeland for the Jews, any more than I believe there should be one for the Catholics. The demand for no Jewish state is valid. Its irreconcilability with the demand to maintain one is the stuff of politics. Competing demands and claims confront us all the time. The demand for abortion – the demand to ban it, for example. Each side can legitimately pursue its goal – while each of the goals are irreconcilable with the other.
    I no more agree that the Shoah gives a right to land theft and new statehood for Jews than it should do for Tutsis in modern Rwanda. Nor do I agree with Trotsky – what was a historical necessity was the protection of Jews from these crimes. Trotsky never lived to see the Holocaust, dying in 1940, a full 15 months before the Wannsee conference. So whatever his view was based on it was not an overview of the effects of the Holocaust.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 2/2
    It seems beyond dispute that Nazi crimes against humanity and Israeli crimes against humanity are of the same genre. The real problem here is that once the comparison is made it calls into question the credibility of Israeli claims to have been the victim of Nazi atrocities to such an extent that it would never consider carrying out such atrocities itself. Israel wants it atrocities concealed from the world, again much like the Nazis did. Are the Palestinians of Gaza treated better or worse than Jews in pre-war Germany? In my view, worse.

    Israel is an evil state. I make no apology for saying it. It inflicts on Palestinians many things that were inflicted by the Nazis on Jews. It is not a uniquely evil state because there are so many of them. The Argentine state was evil in the 76-83 period. The Saudi state is evil and probably has never been anything but. The Salvadorian state in the 1980s … the list is endless.

    Talk of Manichean struggles about imperialism just cause my eyes to glaze over.
    The Israeli state is held to account by its press and judiciary? Where? How many of their troops have been convicted for murdering three-year-old Palestinian children? What impact has this accountability had in the illegal Settlements or in Gaza? Has it protected Palestinians from torture or lebensraum? The Israeli judiciary is a deferential joke and apart from one or two brave columnists like Gideon Levy (who require a police guard), the press pretty much let them get on with it.

    ReplyDelete