On 22 June 2011, Unison National Delegate Conference voted against a policy of “critical engagement” with the mass Israeli trade union federation, the Histadrut. The effect of this vote is to suspend relations with Histadrut pending a review and further recommendations next year.
The debate on conference floor was very confused. In November 2010, a Unison delegation travelled to Palestine and met with the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU). The PFTUC recommended the policy of “critical engagement” with the Histadrut. In April 2011, this advice was repeated. Then in May 2011 a conference was called by Palestine Trade Union Congress (Boycott, Disinvestment, Sanctions), which called for international unions to sever links with Histadrut. It is not clear who the PTUC (BDS) are but according to their statement it includes all the unions that make up the PGFTU and more.
In the contributions that framed the debate, the spectre of left anti-Semitism loomed large. The whole question of boycotting Histadrut is an attempt to foist responsibility for the actions of the Israeli state onto the main Israeli trade union federation. Speakers noted the Histadrut's failure to condemn the actions of the Israeli state as evidence that they were “complicit” in these actions.
A member of the SWP made a contribution where she recalled the time when the general secretaries of Histadrut and PGFTU met at Unison conference a few years ago. She was amazed that they had never met before. She argued that although the live just a few miles away from each other, they are separated by the “Apartheid Wall”. She then argued that we should boycott Histadrut because they fail to condemn the Wall. In effect, we should do everything in our power to make sure these people do not meet again.
While it is true that the Histadrut fails to condemn the murderous actions of the Israeli state, this does not explain how it is “complicit”. It is the same logic by which the left demands Jewish comrades to atone for the crimes of the Israeli state. Any Jew who argues for a two-state settlement (i.e. believes in the Israeli-Jewish right to self-determination) is a “Zionist”. It is equivalent to saying that Arabs or Muslims who do not condemn 9/11 are all terrorists. Indeed, are Unison members “complicit” in the imperialist slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan because our union funds the governing party which carried them out?
The idea that Jews bear collective responsibility is the flipside of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine that there is a world Jewish conspiracy. This view was made most explicit by George Binnette, from Permanent Revolution, who argued “This debate could never happen in the US union movement because [...] the US gives more foreign aid to Israel than to any other country.” Is the implication that Zionist Jews control America, including the American labour movement, and prohibit any debate about Israel-Palestine?
The comparison was made repeatedly between Histadrut and the whites-only unions in Apartheid South Africa. Whilst Histadrut has a history of excluding Israeli Arabs from the labour market, this is not the current practice. In fact, their collaboration with Palestinian trade unionists has led to an improvement in workers rights for Arab and migrant workers in Israel. A better analogy is perhaps with the Sri Lankan Public Services United Nurses Union which failed to oppose the genocide of the Tamils in 2009.
Undoubtably the Palestinians deserve and need our solidarity in their struggle for national liberation against the forces of Israeli imperialism. However, they also deserve – and desperately need - the solidarity of the Israeli working-class. By singling out Israeli workers for special mention, and arguing that they are especially complicit in the crimes of their state, Unison has only served the interests of Israeli chauvinism.
