Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 8:07 am
Labor in Palestine: The Work of Resistance Gets a New Push
There are a few values that trade unionists generally agree on: the power of collective action, basic economic security, fair job opportunities. Things get messy when those bread-and-butter issues clash with one of the most vicious and bitter political conflicts in modern history. The intersection of the labor movement and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict adds a twist to the expansive, convoluted battle for land, sovereignty and justice in the Middle East.
Left and progressive views get filtered through a curious prism when it comes to Israel-Palestine. Nationalist and revolutionary impulses on both sides have yielded rival versions of history; fractured memories of Palestinian displacement and trauma fulminate on one side of the wall, against Israel's ideological fervor and a fierce sense of entitlement. Civil society, labor included, have been militarized on both sides, with some groups calling for massive resistance and others for formal cooperation.
Today, the boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign (BDS) has emerged as a global nonviolent front to combat Israeli occupation; the economic agenda of the movement has foregrounded labor's stance.
The BDS campaign has gathered international momentum among labor advocates, spurred through solidarity campaigns by unions and civil society groups. Global organizing efforts culminated earlier this month with the release of a manifesto of the Palestinian Trade Union Coalition for BDS.
Following the Palestinian trade union conference on BDS last month, the “Statement of Principles & Call for International Trade Union Support for BDS” cited myriad injustices suffered by Palestinians in recent years, including systematic discrimination; the alleged confiscation of Palestinian workers' wages; “Maintaining active commercial interests in Israel's illegal settlement enterprise”; and perhaps most of all, the militarized devastation of the occupied territories, whether through outright attack (as with the 2008-2009 War on Gaza ), or gradual socioeconomic strangulation through enforced isolation.
Some recommended direct actions include:
Boycotting Israeli and international companies (such as Elbit, Agrexco, Veolia, Alstom, Caterpillar, Northrop Grumman, etc.) and institutions that are complicit with Israel’s occupation and violations of international law,...
pressuring governments to suspend Free Trade Agreements, end arms trade and military relations with Israel with the intention of eventually cutting all diplomatic ties with it...
Calls on port workers around the world to boycott loading/offloading Israeli ships, similar to the heroic step taken by port workers around the world in suspending maritime trade with South Africa in protest against the apartheid regime, and
Calls on trade unions around the world to review and sever all ties with the [Israeli trade union] Histadrut.
Palestinian labor was one of many civil society forces galvanized by the massacre on the Freedom Flotilla, the activist mission that Israeli forces attacked about a year ago. Joining a worldwide outcry, the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions indicted Histadrut as an accomplice the military aggression, and “reacted with shock at the irresponsible stand taken by General Federation of Labour in Israel, Histadrut, regarding to the Israeli Forces brutal attacks on civilians, including trade unionists, on [the] freedom flotilla.”
Drawing a battle line across labor, the statement pulled back from an incremental rapprochement during the preceding months. The International Trade Union Confederation helped broker a framework for Israeli-Palestinian labor unity that included, at least in theory, settling financial disputes and ensuring more equitable treatment of Palestinian workers.
But the conciliatory statements failed to remedy the endemic inequality of the social structure under occupation. The assault on Gaza and the flotilla attack underscored Palestinian grievances and seemed to prove, despite well-intentioned efforts by the ITUC, the hopelessness of formal reconciliation.
Histadrut's statement on the Gaza conflict displayed an almost eerie disconnect between the sanitized rhetoric of solidarity and the reality of political strife:
We strongly believe that it is a matter of Israeli and Palestinian self interest to have satisfied and relaxed citizens who will not be attracted to extremism or terrorism.
The Histadrut does not want to deal with the political bones of contention in the Israeli-Arab conflict. It is clear to us that the conflict between the two sides is a zero sum game. We believe that the trade unions in our region are the real grassroots representatives an, as such, we have the power to change the atmosphere and to create a stronger mutual understanding. Our role is to protect workers' rights, regardless of differences in religion, race and sex.
The statement might seem more plausible were it not for Histadrut's deep historical ties to the Zionist movement from its earliest days, and the role of labor Zionism in popularizing and solidifying the ideology of a Jewish state. The intertwining of socialism, labor and Zionism today remains a pillar of Israel's founding narrative.
As the Arab Spring has swept across the Middle East and North Africa, pro-Palestinian activism has taken on a new valence around the world, soon to be tested in the contentious push for unified Palestinian statehood. Palestine stands no longer as a mere symbol of oppression in the Middle East but as a crucible of structural change.
Our new modes of organising include a direct challenge to entrenched institutional power. We do not want to just memorialise the past, but also to demand a new future.
While the Palestinian plight has long served as kindling for activism throughout the Arab world, the power of secular pro-democracy movements throughout the region now reverberate in Palestine as a validation of grassroots resistance.
If that feedback loop can be harnessed to reinvigorate the idea of Palestinian liberation, then we might finally see the ends and the means match up in the struggle to defeat imperialism, violence and dictatorship. Peaceful resistance without compromise is harder than waging war—and it's a good job for a strong labor movement.
What do you want to see from our coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates?
As our editorial team maps our plan for how to cover the 2020 Democratic primary, we want to hear from you:
It only takes a minute to answer this short, three-question survey, but your input will help shape our coverage for months to come. That’s why we want to make sure you have a chance to share your thoughts.
Michelle Chen is a contributing writer at In These Times and The Nation, a contributing editor at Dissent and a co-producer of the "Belabored" podcast. She studies history at the CUNY Graduate Center. She tweets at @meeshellchen.
More by Michelle Chen
- “Hardhats vs. Hippies”: How the Media Misrepresents the Debate Over the Green New Deal
- 6 Years After Rana Plaza Collapse, an Accord to Improve Bangladesh’s Worker Safety Is in Jeopardy
- Labor Unrest Is Erupting on Honduran Plantations—And Rattling the Global Supply Chain
- This Is How We Can Defend Migrants Coming to the Border
- The Rallying Cry of a Nationwide Movement: “Chinga la Migra” (F*ck Border Patrol)