Should unions boycott Israel?
Posted on Saturday 16 June, 2007
Filed Under Israel
Decisions by the National Union of Journalists and the University and College Union to boycott Israel have generated media coverage worldwide. Unison will shortly vote on the issue too.
David Cameron is in no doubt who the prime movers are, according to the Jerusalem Post. Speaking at a recent Conservative Friends of Israel meeting, the Tory leader declared himself ‘a Zionist’ and went on:
“Israel is a democratic country and these Trotskyists are treating Israel as some sort of pariah state,” Cameron said. “[They] may be a bunch of lunatics, but what they are doing is profoundly wrong and profoundly damaging,” he added.
Not all Trotskyists agree with the SWP-defined far left orthodoxy, of course. The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty have long singled themselves out in this respect. And there’s an interesting article on the Socialist Party website, arguing that the boycott call is tactically wrong-headed.
Nevertheless, if I had been a delegate to the NUJ conference – which I have been on around half a dozen occasions in 19 years of membership – I’m not sure how I would have voted.
In general, my ethical position is that labour movement organisations, or any vertebrate self-respecting liberal come to that, should put whatever moral pressure they can on repressive regimes. And Israel is certainly that. Justification for backing the motion, then?
But it is scarcely uniquely repressive. It is not qualitatively worse than Saudi Arabia, Burma, Sudan or Zimbabwe, to mention some obvious examples. Certain of these countries are hailed in some quarters of the British left as anti-imperialist. For the sake of consistency alone, support for a boycott of one should entail support for a boycott of all of them.
Just by way of trying to think this one through, I’ve asked myself a few questions. First, does Zionism really ‘equal racism’ or even apartheid? No. I have read Theodor Herzl’s The Jewish State. None of the content struck me as an apologetic for racial supremacy.
Second, is Israel ‘a client state of US imperialism’? Again, there is no doubt that it pursues a policy of alliance with the US as a tactical expedient, precisely because it regards this as the best means of ensuring its survival. But it is not the only US ally in the Middle East. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are favoured by Washington too..
Third, is Israel ‘a settler state’? There are arguments that post-1948 Israel can be so described. But the intended parallel with South Africa falls down, not least because there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine for thousands of years.
Finally, what should socialists say? Throughout the long period that I considered myself a Trotskyist, I had a ready-made answer to that one off pat: socialist revolution in the Middle East would be led by the Arab working class, which would liberate Palestine and bring about a socialist republic with full rights for Jews and all national minorities. I even used to get up in meetings and argue that kind of stuff.
But it’s not much of a perspective to cling to at a time when the domination of ruling classes best described as theocratic, kleptocratic or both seems unshakeable throughout the Middle East, while Palestine itself descends into de facto civil war, and even Hamas fears losing its grip on the streets to forces even further on the Islamist scale.
Can anybody offer a guide for the perplexed?
<<Go back
Comments
257 Responses to “Should unions boycott Israel?”
Phil wrote:
“we’re talking about supporting a campaign that already exists, started by people who are a lot closer to the sharp end than any of us here”
and I am pointing out that the statement is not a fit and logical argument, as it is not explicit in its premise of the choice country when compared to the other countries?
why should an academic in UCU support the case for an academic boycott of any country, if those arguing for the boycott cannot provide cogent and logical reasoning to support their arguments?
I am pointing out that the statement is not a fit and logical argument, as it is not explicit in its premise of the choice country when compared to the other countries?
What do you mean, “when compared to the other countries”? You may have a personal rule that you’ll only support one campaign at a time, and that it has to involve the single most unjust country in the world ever, but most of us are more pragmatic. And, as I said in my previous comment, supporting this campaign doesn’t lessen our ability to support other campaigns started by other people who are also suffering from other forms of injustice.
Modernity.
I have already explained, as have others, the issues over which the boycott is predicated.
The desired result is that Israel becomes politicaly more isolated, and it becomes more difficult for the US and other governments to continue providing financial and military aid for the occupation.
the boycott debate may – for example – highlight the role of American dollars in funding the illegal settlement on occupied land – settlements that you say you oppose.
Hopefully with increased international pressure the Israeli state might be more inclined to compromise.
In my view the Israeli state will not change tack until it becomes in some way incentivised to do so, and a boycott and sanctions is better than war.
Tim
Clearly there must have been motions presented to those unions who are involved with the Boycott Burma campaign otherwise it could not have become policy.
I personaly would never buy anything from Burma.
One of the reasons that Burma has been singled out is because of not only the dictatorship, but also the racism of the Myanmar government, who have sought to use the state as the expression of the majority ethnic group.
There would also be good reasons for measures against a number of other countries. On the SU blog that I contribute to we have frequently taken up the issue of islamist violence against the new left party Papernas in Indonesia, and the support by the state for that Islmaist violence, and we have also taken up the case of the leader of the Labour Party of pakistan, Tariq Farooq who has been gaoled for three months.
None of you here have protested on the SU blog complaining about my highlighting the injustice in Indonesia and pakistan, so there has been less debate.
Cleraly therefore I do take up issues ralating to other countries, so is it a suprise that I also take up the issue of palestine.
BTW – even Tony Blair recognises that a just settlement to the polaestinian question is vital to the peace and securityy of the whole Middle East, so is it so weird that socialists should want to promote a just outcome there?
Phil wrote:
and that it has to involve the single most unjust country in the world ever, but most of us are more pragmatic.
so as I pointed out earlier, the criteria seems to shifted from ad hoc list of misdemeanours to some form of political expediency?
but that still doesn’t answer the question, on what criteria is Israel been selected out of 194 countries?
Andy Newman wrote:
the issues over which the boycott is predicated.
on the contrary, that has been the issue, getting people to clearly state their premise and and to do it logically, not as a collection of anecdotes, ad hoc statements or irrelevances
Resistor,
“the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. This is their right in international law.”
When does the boycott of the Czech Republic demanding the return of all Germans to their homes and displacing all the Czechs now living there start?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia_after_World_War_II#Results
MOdernity
i have no idea what you are on about.
A premise might be that the illegal settlements need to stop and be dismantled.
A boycott draws attention to the issue, and incentivises the Israeli government to change policy.
Why Israel – becasue the settlement of half a million colonists on occupied land and the annexation of East Jerusalem are unique in the mooern world.
Perhaps we would prefer to see peace instead of another 60 years of war. Wouldn’t you?
I see Syria has been brought up by Reistor.
Any views on the Alawite dictatorship,lack of union rights democracy and a free press.
Oh and the occupation of Lebanon?
on what criteria is Israel been selected out of 194 countries?
As I said in the comment you were responding to, “You may have a personal rule that you’ll only support one campaign at a time, and that it has to involve the single most unjust country in the world ever, but most of us are more pragmatic. And, as I said in my previous comment, supporting this campaign doesn’t lessen our ability to support other campaigns started by other people who are also suffering from other forms of injustice.”
I’ve tried debating with you in good faith, but it’s obviously pointless. You may now have the last word.
Andy Newman wrote:
i have no idea what you are on about.
I can see that, but that doesn’t answer Tom’s above point or clarify the issue for Dave.
I shall try to explain in away that you might understand.
suppose you were conducting some research into a new material, for engineering purposes
In your report or notes on the research, you would probably write something similar to:
“when picking out a particular material to conduct experiments on, I chose this particular material because:
1. out of all the materials around it fulfils the criteria of yyy and xxx
2. secondly, this material is unique because of aaa and bbb ”
I hope you can follow where that leads
when you are arguing in front of an academic and saying, “we should boycott Israel”, their first responses might be
“why did you pick Israel?” or
“what are your criteria for choosing Israel out of all the countries in the world, to boycott?”
following Tom’s point above and trying to illuminate the subject,
I am asking for the criteria for the ***selection*** of Israel out of all the other countries in the world, and does that criteria stand up to scrutiny?
I hope that is clearer?
Something tells me that all the cogent and logical reasoning in the world wouldn’t pass modernityblog’s special air-tight legalistic-scientific Validity Test For Political Actions And Arguments. I must read this guy’s blog some time; the high standards of debate must be truly breathtaking.
Great stuff.
150 posts after my initial thoughts, I’m still unsure and this thread has only confused me more. I have doubt over whether a boycott would be effective but I’m not unsympathetic to the pro-boycott argument.
People keep asking, “Why Israel?” and not, say, China or Pakistan. Actually there was a decent article in Red Pepper by Richard Kuper a while ago, not specifically about the boycott. I can’t find it online but in summary here are the writer’s answers to “Why Israel?”:
1. Israel singles itself out and presents itself as special. It sees itself as a state based on liberty, justice and peace, not to mention academic freedom; it claims to be the region’s greatest defender of these values; it invites evaluation in such terms; and as a self-proclaimed Western style democracy it is perhaps reasonable for citizens in other democracies (and those inside Israel) to to take greater responsibility in altering its anti-democratic actions.
2. Israel controls a number of religious sites that are of special significance to the three major world religions. What happens in these places is bound to arouse the interests of millions or billions of people across the world. The significance of what happens there is truly global.
3. It is the largest single recipient of US aid. To quote Kruper, “Insofar as one believes that the US plays a dominant role in the international system, its choice of countries to support is of legitimate concern.”
4. Israel singles itself out with regard to followers of Judaism everywhere. “It presents itself as their real home, as opposed to the multiplicity of countries in which Jews have settled and integrated.” It is Israel’s claim to occupy the moral high ground which incenses many of its critics whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Christian, socialist etc.
How about that then? I think there are some legitimate points here; are they relevant to the boycott?
Modernity
I also give up on you
I wrote above:
Why Israel – becasue the settlement of half a million colonists on occupied land and the annexation of East Jerusalem are unique in the modern world.
Andy,
Didnt China bring Tibet into the modern world?
Andy Newman wrote:
Why Israel – becasue the settlement of half a million colonists on occupied land and the annexation of East Jerusalem are unique in the modern world.
obviously geographical locations are unique, so hardly the subject of objective criteria, but you’ve clarified your position immensely it is:
the settlement of half a million colonists on occupied land
let’s examine that proposition, is there another country in the world where half a million or more are on occupied land, that fits the bill?
yes, there is Tibet.
apparently there are some 2 million plus Chinese settlers in the annexed region of Tibet
and we know from reports that the Chinese are brutal and repressive not only against Tibetans and Tibetan culture , but also they strictly restrict foreign access to the region to limit the reports of their crimes
so if you are picking country on that basis, and surely you should propose a boycott of China, first, for the brutality, murders, settler policy and annexation of Tibet?
[leaving aside the corruption, human right abuses and slave labour, etc in China]
That is, if your choice in these matters is based upon objective criteria and logic
And restriction of trade unions,internet access,free press etc. and have a look at the law of return policy while you’re at it.
Modernity, one question. Forget other countries’ abuses for a sec (and I’d agree, as it goes, that there are worse governments than Israel) – Given the injustices of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians, what SHOULD civil society organisations/trade unionists in countries like ours do to register practical opposition? This was the essence of the dilemma in Dave’s initial post
And can you stop all this nudge-nudge wink-wink innuendos about others’ perceived anti-semitism. If you think someone here is anti-semitic and motivated by that, say it outright. Name and shame. In short, shit or get off the pot.
Is Tibet central to the US strategy to control the terms of trade for 2/3rds of the worlds oil? Is China the chief recipient of US foreign aid since 1967 and the principle military ally of the dominant world power in the most strategic area in the world? Is Tibet central to the rolling back of the “war on terror” paradigm? Has Tibet been flagged by the media as the most important unresolved international dispute for almost a generation? Does the left have any say in this dynamic? Or is it responding to the disgust caused by the actions of the Israeli state since Oslo? Can I only make points in the form of a question?
Can I only make points in the form of a question?
Why do you ask?
Nice try – but what a load of rubbish.
Tibet has been legally part of China since the sixteenth century. Under military and diplomatioc pressure from Britain China was forced to give autonomy in 1913, but no Chinese nationalist, not Sun Yet Sen, nor Chaing Kait Shek, nor Mao have ever recognised the 1914 Treaty of Simla -0 as it was imposed upon them by Britishh imperialism.
To this day Taiwan also claims Tibet.
Under the rule of the Dalai lama between 1913 and 1959 – so beloved of western liberals, Tibet was the most appalling obscurabtist theocracy, and widespread and chronic famine reduced the populatioon to less than two million. The country was based upon slavery, and serfdom, including appaling institionalised child slavery and abuse. Illiteracy and dirt poverty blighted every tibetan excet for the theocrats and the landlords. I am sure it gives libeerals wet dreams, but autonomus Tibet was a descent into the darkest pit of hell for the Tibetan slaves and serfs.
Under japanese occupation nothing could be done to liberate tibet, but once independence from japan was won, and a national government was consolidated in 1949, it was a natural next step to address the appalling plight of Tibet, and they started to intervene in 1950.
I repeat that Tibet was always part of China, but the disatrous autonomous reaction of the Dalai lama was fortunately ended in 1959. This involved a great deal of fighting between Tibertan as slave owners and landlords fought against the slaves and serfs who sided with the Red Army.
Under Communist rule famine was abolished, slavery was abolished, serfdom was abolished, illiteracy was eliminated, child mortality fell from just under 50%% to less than half a per cent, agricultural reform ended the dirt poverty, and the disastrous decline of the ethnic tibetan population was reversed, there are now three or four times as many ethnic Tibertans as there were in 1959, reversing over a century of falling population due to famine and diesease. What bastards those Chinese are.
Now the Free Tibet obscurantists who want to retore the theorcracy (we can see this because they tout round the latest “incarnation” of the Dalai lama) play fast and lose with the statistaics by claiming a Greater Tibet, including a number of Han Chinese provinces like Xinang that have never been autonomous and are nealy all Han.
The government of the PRC has encouraged immigration into Tibet, but has also fostered and developed the Tibetan population – and to be quite frank the period since 1959 has been the most enlightened and liberal government the Tibetans have ever known.
Tibet has of course suffered terrible crimes and excesses, but no more so than the rest of China who all suffered from the lunacies of Maoist rule.
There is no national libratioin movement in Tibet, and Tibet has never been a nation in the modern sense. Now you may think that the restoration of theocratic autocracy, and driving the tibetan society back 1000 years or more into darkness is something worth campigning for., I don’t. And most noticeably no-one in Tibet seems to want that either. There is no national liberation movement.
Tom, you raised an honest point:
what SHOULD civil society organisations/trade unionists in countries like ours do to register practical opposition?
I think firstly, we in the West need to get out of the good vs. evil mentality, the situation is complex over there and it is not a zero sum game (one side “winning” won’t help either of them), there is a terrible tendency in the West to see such conflicts in Manichaean terms, which ultimately help no one but are good for some Western posturing.
I think trade unions should build links directly with the Israelis and put pressure on them to build links directly with the Palestinian’s and improve living and working conditions.
Screaming and shouting of people from a far will only seek to alienate those that could help the day-to-day lives of people in the region.
I think the best that could happen is for those in Israeli and Palestinian societies, to appreciate that they are largely destined to live next to each other, to sit down and workout how to make their reality.
I think trade unions should push the Geneva accords which as a blueprint probably near a final solution is any.
I can see no historical example of where the Israelis will succumb to strong-arm tactics, there is already a siege mentality in the region and it would heighten that.
the boycott plays into the hands of the Israeli right, and strengthens them which is not a good for peace.
now if people are completely dismissive of most Israelis and think that their only fit to be blown up by suicide bombs, then all that I said won’t maker damns difference, but I don’t think the conflict will be resolved by targeted assassinations, or bombs in pizza parlours. It will only come when Israelis and Palestinians sit down and resolve their own problem, and other people try to help not hinder.
I think increasing hostility between people in these types of disputes is counterproductive and may result in more violence not less.
If there was a major boycott of Israel I think there could be an increase in physical attacks on Jews in Britain, and once you’ve let that genie out of the bottle, you won’t stuff it back in again, is that really what antiracists want to do?
Also I think that the people on the Left are more familiar with history and the consequences of our actions, so slightly more care should be taken in considering such action, and the consequences for others weighed up.
As for your second paragraph, I deliberately avoided my normal caustic questioning to see if anyone could provide a rational case. Sadly, they couldn’t.
Why should I be concerned with a rational case? Because if people’s strongly held views are not based on rationality, then what are they based on? And it seems to me that there are few people here with very strongly held views on the boycott and yet I get the feeling there is a lack of candour about their long term intent.
Are people here antisemitic? on the whole, I would be very surprised if they were, but I simply don’t know
I suspect it is much more likely a lot of ignorance of anti-Jewish racism, an inability to see beyond a lot of Soviet style anti-Zionism, some unresolved issues concerning the existence of Jewish people, or maybe even political indoctrination.
You must ask other people about the motives, I don’t know, I am more interested history than psychology so can’t really say.***
I shall leave you with http://www.bitterlemons.org/
Steve Cohen’s (a member of the Jewish Socialist Group) book, “That’s Funny You Don’t Look Antisemitic”
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/thats_funny.pdf
the Geneva accords http://www.geneva-accord.org/HomePage.aspx?FolderID=11&lang=en
PS: ***I am happy to go into some detail on these matters on other blogs (HP, Shiraz Socialist or even my own feeble blog). I don’t think it’s fair or right to derail the discussion on Dave’s blog, as it tends to become a slanging match, which is not terribly productive.
PPS: I think people should read Andy Newman’s article on Atzmon, etc I think it is very good.
I think we have all argued to the point of exhaustion here!
Modernity is referring to the following, http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=554
Which has turned into quaite an interesting debate about the nature of Jewishness.
BTW – we expect you to be more civil to one another if you comment on SU blog, we are less permissive of abuse than Osler is!
Andy Newman wrote:
Tibet has been legally part of China since the sixteenth century.
whose legality? The Chinese? Hmm
[incidentally Ireland was "legally" part of Britain for many years, ratified by various Irish parliaments which were coerced into agreement, so legal arrangements which are coercive do not really apply, but I am sure that anyone with legal experience could explain that to you]
Tibet, to the objective observer, is physically, geographically, culturally and ethnically separate from China. Those are undeniable facts, except to the most ideologically brainwashed Maoist or their allies.
You wrote:
no Chinese nationalist …ever recognised the 1914 Treaty of Simla…”
the fact that some Chinese claim Tibet has no more validity than someone from Scotland claiming York.
You wrote:
it was a natural next step to address the appalling plight of Tibet, and they started to intervene in 1950.
the Chinese decision to invade Tibet had little to do with helping the natives of |Tibet, it was an expansionist enterprise, hell-bent on conquest.
You wrote:
The government of the PRC has encouraged immigration into Tibet, but has also fostered and developed the Tibetan population – and to be quite frank the period since 1959 has been the most enlightened and liberal government the Tibetans have ever known.
so essentially you excuse away Chinese mass settlement of Tibet because of some alleged “enlightenment” which it brought along the a line?
This is basically the argument used by British Imperialists, and how they brought “civilisation” to allegedly “backward people”
It seems that you agree with the gist of their argument, just the protagonists are different,
It is a terrible argument and mindset for a socialist to have, and has been used by rulers every where to provide a pretext for their conquests (remember Iraq???)
You wrote:
of course suffered terrible crimes and excesses, but no more so than the rest of China who all suffered from the lunacies of Maoist rule.
you excuse away, the deliberate policy of repression and murder in Tibet by the Chinese, with a bit of questionable relativism “the rest of China…suffered”
you wrote:
There is no national libratioin movement in Tibet,
there was a national liberation movement, for some minor period of time, but it was brutally repressed by the Chinese, and nowadays the Chinese would murder and imprisoned any Tibetan that openly spoke of Tibetan ruling Tibet.
That explains why, as is far as we can tell, there is no open National liberation movement in Tibet. China is brutal against opposition in Tibet, severely restricts access and limits any critical reporting of the country.
You wrote:
Tibet has never been a nation in the modern sense.
a very similar argument is used by rightwing loonies, but instead of Tibet, they use the word “Palestine” and it must be obvious that in both examples it fails. Simply because some entity will group of people have never been a “nation in the modern sense”*** does not mean that they cannot become a nation where they, not some foreign power, decides what they wish to do. The people of Tibet should run their own affairs as should Palestinians.
Now all that you wrote does not deny:
1) the annexation of Tibet by Chinese force
2) the deliberate policy of settling Chinese in Tibet
3) the brutal repressive regime which has been applied Tibet since the 1950s
your excuses are those of an indoctrinated Maoist or similar mindset, but the parallels are clear.
If people genuinely believe that humanitarian rights apply to the Palestinians, then they must apply to the Tibetans as well
Andy, I had hoped that one of your fellow pro boycotters might have explained the implications of your support for repressive Chinese rule in Tibet, but somehow I doubt it would have sunk in.
Anyone in any doubt about the repressive and brutal nature of Chinese rule in Tibet should see
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=B0641B4B43873B66802569A600601F21 and
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/chn-summary-eng and http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK1957720070309?pageNumber=2
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/china-98/tibet.htm
there’s plenty more, just put, repression Tibet into google
PS: Andy, perhaps you would care to do an article on the Socialist Unity blog, explaining away the Chinese occupation of Tibet ? one on how Tibetan human rights aren’t really that important to modern “socialists”?
What will you do for your next trick? Justify Soviet repression in Hungary or putting down of the Czechoslovakians? Remember 1956 and 1968?
I have to say that Andys Tibet post is one of the most remarkable things I’ve read by an “anti imperialist”.
Tom,
Just to clarify an earlier point, I think a person either believe in universal human rights for everyone or they don’t really believe in human rights.
That’s why I tried to continue in the debate to draw out the background thinking of the boycott’s proponents.
as we can see from Andy’s contribution, he doesn’t really believe in Tibetan human rights and so you have to wonder about his wider commitment to human rights elsewhere in the globe
but he has to be congratulated for his occasional bouts of candour, even if they are illogical and supportive of repressive regimes (China)
in terms of the motives of the boycotters.
I think many are genuinely concerned with human rights is a universal concept, others are political hacks, a few are ill formed, still more think “something must be done”.
I think very veryfew are really antisemites, more likely the residue of Stalinistic anti-Zionism drives some, but either way, it is productive to debate these issues until people are open about their motives.
You will have to ask other people what their motives are in favouring the boycott, mine are fairly clear: I don’t like people attacking Jews, in any way shape or form.
Personally, I think universal human rights should apply to Tibetans, the Irish, Latin Americans, etc and the Palestinians. You can’t be genuine on this issues, if you selectively pick at human rights dependent on your geopolitical outlook as Andy (and others) do.
As we see already in UCU, Jewish academics are resigning from the trade union, so I wonder is that really what trade unionism is about? Will some people be happy when trade unions are largely Judenfrei?
I believe trade unions in this country need to grow and that happens by fostering solidarity, not by encouraging (consciously or subconsciously) acrimony.
So Modernityblog would like to see the introduction of Medievalist theocracy in Tibet? I must congratulate him on having the guts to make such a frank admission, especially on a leftist blog.
Modernity, it would perhaps save everyone a lot of wasted effort if you were to admit that you’re a fairly hardline Zionist who will never concede that there is a case for boycotting Israel, and that, for all your attempts to come across as an utterly objective, emotionless, legalistic debating machine, you had made your mind up on the issue long before posting on this thread Every one of your comments so far reeks of your own agenda, and shows a steadfast refusal to consider any evidence which disagrees with your own prejudices.
Your only argument against the boycott appears to be: “why single out Israel, when other countries are doing nasty things?” – accompanied by veiled allegations of anti-semitism (directed at people who take pride in being utterly against discrimination on racial and religious grounds).
This argument has been comprehensively dismantled by a number of people in this thread, and elsewhere. To recap:
1. Israel is not being “singled out”
2. Ignoring 1. for a second, there are plenty of reasons why it is uniquely ripe for condemnation.
The above text will be ignored by Modernityblog, who will continue his Zionist trolling disguised as debate, as before. I would warn anyone else who is thinking about engaging Modernityblog on this, or any other topic, that he is a regular at neo-con hate site Harry’s Place, and employs the techniques regularly used there, ie deliberately misinterpreting an opponents argument; making specious analogies; taking quotes out of context; asking opponents to defend a dubious piece of text from a website three clicks away from their own; making allegations of anti-semitism with no evidence; accusing people of being “WJ Phillips” (a Mosleyite troll who used to frequent the place under a number of pseudonyms); and demanding that Darfur be discussed instead of the current topic.
These people are not interested in rational discussion, and there is no point talking to them.
Modernity’s gratuitous and inflammatory use of the word ‘Judenfrei’ (incorrectly capitalised) instantly denudes his posting of any shred of credibility it might have had.
My two pee’s worth is that it’s a mistake to pass these boycott resolutions.
The unions already have an image problem. Many non-unionised people regard the unions as politically nutty, and that puts them off joining. Passing resolutions, that probably can’t even been practically implemented, on complex foreign policy issues is only going to reinforce that view. Surely even you Trots would see it as more important to rebuild the strength of the labour movement (even if that involves some decontamination of the union ‘brand’) than achieving a meaningless short-term win for the saek of posturing?
In any case, Burma is surely a much better target for this kind of work? Very clear labour movement position internationally, the opposition movement involved isn’t dominated by religious nutcases who ideas and methods are worse than some of those they are fighting against and so on.
Modernity Watch wrote:
So Modernityblog would like to see the introduction of Medievalist theocracy in Tibet?
I gratified for the attention, but none of that changes the historical facts about Tibet and Chinese repression:
military annexation,
deliberate settler policy
and a murderous regime against Tibetan independence
PS: I favour a Tibetians running their own country, much like Scandinavian countries, secular and with a very good welfare state, sorry you find such a view controversial
What a strange view Andy.
People in Tibet may vote for a system you dont like.No right to a state.
Voting for an anti semitic,mosogynist movement such as Hamas does not affect that right.
I see that Modernityblog equates the right of the Tibetans to rule themselves with the right of the Palestinians to the same. Good. So do I. Even if Andy was right about the horrors of ancien regime Tibet and the progressive aspects of Chinese rule this would not lessen the right of the Tibeans to rule themselves- just as you could support Indian independence without being accused of wanting to bring back suttee or supporting the caste system
I take it therefore that he supports as I do the demand from the Free Tibet Campaign for sanctions and disinvestment against Chinese rule in Tibet – in particular that the British Government stops supporting investment by British fims in infrastructure projects aimed at reinforcing Chinese occupation of Tibet.
As far as I know however, the campaign has never attempted to explain why it is ‘singling out’ the Chinese occupation of Tibet for such sanctions as against all othe other human rights abuses in the world. Nor afaik has it been accused of anti-Chinese racism for such ‘singling out’.
Nor did the recent advertisement in the national press calling for sanctions against Sudan over Darfur even try to explain why Sudan was being ‘singled out’ over, say, Chechnya or Congo where equal or greater human rights abuses have been going on for longer.
Why is Israel being singled out as the only country in the world whose human rights abuses cannot be met with a call for sanctions unless those campaigning on the issue can explain why they are not calling for sanctions against every other human rights abuser in the world?
This pointless and fundamentally illegitimate argument about ‘singling out’ does the defenders of Israel no favours. The sly insinuation of antisemitism is increasingly unacceptable, and gets in the way of a serious discussion around the intellectually respectable arguments against a boycott.
It is entirely reasonable for example to argue that academic boycotts are wrong in principle; that boycotts in general do not work; that boycotts of Israel in particular would be counter-productive as reinforcing the Israeli siege mentality; or of course that pressure on Israel of any sort is not justified as Israel is the party in the right, or at least no more in the wrong than the Palestinians.
I don’t think I am persuaded by any of these arguments, though I do find the first the most weighty. However a discussion around these objections would clearly be capable of advancing everyone’s understanding of the issues.
But the ‘why Israel’ argument is one which is totally sterile, and fundamentally illegitimate.
Stephen Marks wrote:
why it is ‘singling out’ the Chinese occupation of Tibet for such sanctions as against all othe other human rights abuses in the world.
probably, because in terms of human rights abuses China is nearer the head of that list
you wrote:
Nor afaik has it been accused of anti-Chinese racism for such ‘singling out’.
given the long historical context of anti-Jewish racism (the longevity, the intensity, its evolution and how for some it is an all-encompassing ideology) there is natural sensitivity, which wouldn’t necessarily apply to the Chinese, if you see my point?
you wrote:
Why is Israel being singled out as the only country in the world whose human rights abuses cannot be met with a call for sanctions unless those campaigning on the issue can explain why they are not calling for sanctions against every other human rights abuser in the world?
I think the point is that some (although not all) of the most hard-line boycotters do not appear overtly interested in human rights unless it can be used as a stick to beat the Israelis with, I think Andy’s above statements indicate much of that
the question becomes, are some people attacking Israel because they have a deep-seated animosity towards Israel (or Jews) or because they are primarily concerned with the welfare of Palestinians?
and given more recently how the SWP suddenly became the cheerleaders of Hamas (and presumably excusing away when Hamas tossed people off of buildings), then I think that is a legitimate question. I think for the likes of the SWP a geopolitical outlook takes primacy, if that means sucking up to Hamas or any number of genocidal maniacs, so be it, they’re none too fussy.
you wrote:
The sly insinuation of antisemitism is increasingly unacceptable, and gets in the way of a serious discussion around the intellectually respectable arguments against a boycott.
I have dealt with his point at Shiraz socialist and above, looking at your second part, I would welcome some intellectually respectable arguments for a boycott, and as shown above there was a decided lack of them.
But it’s an interesting point, possibly pro boycotters should be more open about the motives and state “I favour boycott because, ultimately I want to destroy Israel” or “I agree with a boycott because I think it may do some good, oh and I have stopped using my (Israeli) developed technology, PCs, mobile phone, medical research, etc”
You’re right when discussing this issue people should state their motives (I’ve done so above) and hope others will too.
you wrote:
fundamentally illegitimate.
so you would have us believe, and yet despite the fact that many of the posters are highly educated Oxbridge graduates, some even working in academia, there has not been a solid and reasoned case put.
until the happens I think that question is perfectly legitimate, obviously pro boycotters won’t because they find it so hard to answer, logically, anyway
there has not been a solid and reasoned case put.
until the happens I think that question is perfectly legitimate
Until “a solid and reasoned case” is put, “that question” will be perfectly legitimate? Hang on, what kind of ‘case’ was it you wanted?
I am asking for the criteria for the ***selection*** of Israel out of all the other countries in the world, and does that criteria stand up to scrutiny?
In other words, you’re asking “why Israel?”. When Stephen argues that “why Israel?” is a fundamentally illegitimate question, you retort that it remains a legitimate question… until someone can answer the question “why Israel?” Somehow this doesn’t strike me as a ringing rebuff.
Several of us have explained why we support a boycott. Several of us have explained that we’re not ‘singling out’ Israel. Several of us have objected strongly to the imputation of anti-semitism. You should be happy – all your concerns have been answered. Instead of which, you hang around like a bad smell, making demands which you know will be rejected and insinuations you aren’t prepared to back up. And, incidentally, I really object to being condescended to by a trainee quantity surveyor from Woking who still lives with his parents and spends all his money on Buffy action figures.
(You may not in fact be a trainee quantity surveyor who still lives with his parents and spends all his money on Buffy action figures from Woking – that was my best guess from looking at your blog. As ‘Scratch’ said, “I’ll happily withdraw if you tell me otherwise”.)
I would like to unreservedly withdraw the imputation that Modders spends all his money on Buffy action figures from Woking. That last parenthesis should of course have read:
(You may not in fact be a trainee quantity surveyor from Woking who still lives with his parents and spends all his money on Buffy action figures – that was my best guess from looking at your blog. As ‘Scratch’ said, “I’ll happily withdraw if you tell me otherwise”.)
phil wrote:
Several of us have explained why we support a boycott
indeed you have, and that’s why I have pointed out the logical and political inconsistencies of these points.
frankly, I would have expected a more logical case from you Dr. Phil, after all you been a politico for years and years and years, you even worked computing and now you’re attached to some legal department in academia, so all in all I would have hoped for a competent logical case to be put by someone of your obvious intelligence (albeit immature character)
so when you have the opportunity to put such a case, I, as, a working-class ex-lumpen prole would be glad to complimentary you on your reasoning skill
however, until then, I shall await your middle class bile not your consider arguments, as I’m sure I’ll get plenty of the former and little of the latter
indeed you have, and that’s why I have pointed out the logical and political inconsistencies of these points.
You’ve done no such thing. All you’ve done is demand explanations for ‘singling out’ Israel. When you’re told we’re not ‘singling out Israel, you ignore it. When you’re told that the demand is illegitimate, you ignore that. Then you throw around a few insults and tell us we’re being ‘illogical’.
But I suppose I wouldn’t expect much better from an embittered former Conservative councillor with a shrine to Fiona Bruce in his bedroom. (You may not in fact be an embittered former Conservative councillor with a shrine to Fiona Bruce in his bedroom; I’ll happily withdraw if you tell me otherwise.)
Dr Phil,
you’re a bit of a comedian when it comes to politics, but I can understand your frustrations, years spent studying, striving, passing an Oxbridge entrance exam, reaching the pinnacle of a Doctorate and yet you are too wrapped up trying to win arguments and demonstrate the flaws in your middle-class character to notice that a logical case for the boycott of Israel hasn’t been put
it must be frustrating if your life is spent dominated by argumentation and yet, in this particular instance, you’re not terribly good at making the case
I don’t expect you to acknowledge that fact but there it is
Everyone talks about Israel, let’s do Tibet!
Andy, I’d be interested to know why the Han Chinese have the right not to be called “imperialist” in their take over the unrelated Tibetian culture. European powers surely found dirt-poor regions, would they have been justifying in annexation?
If association since the 16th century is to be considered legitimalizing current affairs, why does Portugal not return to Angola and Mozambique? And also, dare I say it, Jewish majority presence over historical Palestine. Or will Andy progressively widen the target area here to place them in a minority?
Everyone talks about Israel, let’s do Tibet!
Andy, I’d be interested to know why the Han Chinese have the right not to be called “imperialist” in their take over the unrelated Tibetian culture. European powers surely found dirt-poor regions, would they have been justifying in annexation?
If association since the 16th century is to be considered legitimalizing current affairs, why does Portugal not return to Angola and Mozambique? And also, dare I say it, Jewish majority presence over historical Palestine. Or will Andy progressively widen the target area here to place them in a minority?
“the flaws in your middle-class character”
“Middle-class” as pejorative alert. Modernityblog has done it twice now. Bad boy.
From Modernityblog’s own website:
“So with this particular boycott web site, you’re only four click away from neo-Nazi racist filth”
I take back my comment (15:26, 21 June 2007) where I said modernityblog had previously resorted to “asking opponents to defend a dubious piece of text from a website three clicks away from their own”.
It’s four clicks now.
Modernity Watch wrote:
It’s four clicks now.
thank you for the advertisement, that post which I pulled together in about five minutes, was not to illustrate how clicks you are close to a neo-nazis,
it was to point out that if people are going to support the boycott then they have to be 100% sure that they are not associating, directly or indirectly, with any Neo-nazis or racists who wish to make capital out of the boycott (that is if they feel that avoiding racism is important to them, it is their choice)
perhaps you should have read the post in the entirety and particularly this part:
“Having said all that, do I believe that all pro-boycotters are antisemites or neo-Nazis? Certainly not, however, I think, the boycott clouds these issues and allows real antisemites and neo-Nazis to put over their propaganda.
If so many of the pro-boycotters are genuinely antiracist, than they should be concerned about those connections.
No doubt these web links are inadvertent, genuine mistakes, but there is a greater onus on pro-boycotters to take extra care, given the sensitivity of this issue. There are already documented instances of the extreme right trying to make mileage out of Palestinian Solidarity campaign’s, so there is little excuse for ignorance on this topic, or the need for extra care.”
I hope that some pro-boycotter might reflect on some of those issues
Alec
You ask: “European powers surely found dirt-poor regions, would they have been justifying in annexation?”
Well I take the fairly orthodox view among marxists that the impact of European capitalist expansionism in the 19th century and earlier was contradictory, with both positive and negative outcomes. Marx’s writings on India are very instructive in this regard, he did have some misconceptions about the type of societies that existed there before the British came, but he generally believed, and his point still holds, that the impact of European involvement in India undermined indigenous social structures that were an obstacle to economic and political development, and at the same time Marx supported indian opposition to British imperialism, as fighting for indepedence was also transformatory, and the outcome would negate both British colonialism and also the asiatic despotisms that existed before the British arrived.
Zionist expansionism in the middle East has operated in an entirely different political and economic era.
With reagrd to Tibet. China was not an imperial power in the 1950s, and its sweeping away of Feudalism and slavery in Tibet was progressive. Lincoln’s sweeping away of slavery and the plantation latifundia economy of the Confederate states by military force was also progressive.
Was the subsequent settling of Tibet by Han chinese justifiable? Probably not. Have the ethnic tibetans prospered more under Chinese rule than they would have done under Buddhist theorcracy – almost certainly.
This does not mean that i oppose Tibetan indepedence, though I would be very cautious about the aims of the reactionaries and restorationists in the Free Tibet campaign.
The question raised by Modernity is why only Israel, and my point has been that it is not only Israel but also Burma. And then he says why Israel and not China, well there are reasons that i support a boycott of Israel and not China.
I am not partiularly interested in debating Tibet, at this moment,, though happy to return to it. But I am refuting the implication that there is underlying anti-semitism in a choice of boycotting Israel and not China – to refute that all I need to show is that there is a rational explanation for not boycotting China, even were I wring, it would still be rational. Thus Modernity is wrong to impute anti-semitism. phew …
Andy Newman wrote:
The question raised by Modernity is why only Israel, and my point has been that it is not only Israel but also Burma.
the question of Burma only came out after prolonged discussion, it would be much easier for everyone concerned if hard-line pro-boycotters simply admitted “we chose Israel because of political expediency, and now we’ll draw up the arguments to suit that choice”, at least it would be more honest
Tibet is just one example of the hypocrisy some pro-boycotters, we received almost Maoist justification from Andy Newman on China’s repressive “enlightened” rule in Tibet (see comment 00:03, 21 June 2007) and now we have the spectacle of him retracing his steps
you wrote:
all I need to show is that there is a rational explanation for not boycotting China,
and when you can provide a rational explanation that stands up to any scrutiny, please do so
simply saying “this is the argument”, doesn’t really cut it in the real world, and isn’t, surprisingly, terribly rational
you need to state the objective criteria for your choice, and then applied that to other countries and see if there is a more pressing case
PS: on a more humorous note, Andy could your changing heart over the Tibet, relate to the Chinese’s internet attack on the Marxist Internet Archive?? Remember don’t post anything critical about Tibet or they’ll probably throw a fit!
“it was to point out that if people are going to support the boycott then they have to be 100% sure that they are not associating, directly or indirectly, with any Neo-nazis or racists who wish to make capital out of the boycott ”
This argument is specious. You’re saying that, if one single neo-Nazi out there supports a boycott of Israel, for any reason (and I think we can all agree that neo-Nazis are unlikely to have the best interests of Palestinians at heart), then the boycott is somehow tainted with Nazi “associations”. This is a variation on the same anti-semitism smear you’ve used before, only this time using your “four click” logic, as discussed by “Modernity Watch” above. You’re suggesting that pro-boycott activists are being anti-semites without even realising it; that they’re being duped into supporting Nazis.
What causes do you support, Modernity? I presume you don’t spend *all* of your time defending Israel on the internet. Are you absolutely sure that you’re not “indirectly” associating with *any* racists or bigots who have their own agenda.
Let’s take as an example the one cause we do know you support. Zionism has considerable support among fundamentalist Christians, who are personally anti-semitic in belief but see the presence of Israel as an essential stepping stone to the Second Coming of Christ. By your reasoning, you are associating indirectly with any fundamentalist anti-semitic theist bigots, who wish to make capital out of Israel.
“it was to point out that if people are going to support the boycott then they have to be 100% sure that they are not associating, directly or indirectly, with any Neo-nazis or racists who wish to make capital out of the boycott ”
This argument is specious. You’re saying that, if one single neo-Nazi out there supports a boycott of Israel, for any reason (and I think we can all agree that neo-Nazis are unlikely to have the best interests of Palestinians at heart), then the boycott is somehow tainted with Nazi “associations”. This is a variation on the same anti-semitism smear you’ve used before, only this time using your “four click” logic, as discussed by “Modernity Watch” above. You’re suggesting that pro-boycott activists are being anti-semites without even realising it; that they’re being duped into supporting Nazis.
What causes do you support, Modernity? I presume you don’t spend *all* of your time defending Israel on the internet. Are you absolutely sure that you’re not “indirectly” associating with *any* racists or bigots who have their own agenda.
Let’s take as an example the one cause we do know you support. Zionism has considerable support among fundamentalist Christians, who are personally anti-semitic in belief but see the presence of Israel as an essential stepping stone to the Second Coming of Christ. By your reasoning, you are associating indirectly with fundamentalist anti-semitic theist bigots, who wish to make capital out of Israel.
Paul wrote:
This argument is specious
possibly it would be better if you read the whole article on my blog, as I refer to several instances where the extreme right have tried to make political capital out of the Palestinian Solidarity campaign, and how rightly this was opposed by some socialists.
if you think that associating the Palestinian Solidarity campaign with racists like Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen is worth while, please say so
I think that Palestinian Solidarity campaigns should disassociate themselves with any racists that come near them
you wrote:
You’re suggesting that pro-boycott activists are being anti-semites without even realising it; that they’re being duped into supporting Nazis.
No, I am not , I am suggesting that given the sensitivity of this topic, that the onus is on them to take extra care
you wrote:
What causes do you support
a varied number not least, Searchlight, stop the BNP and other fine campaigns, including the National Secular Society, ASH, etc
you wrote:
By your reasoning,
sigh, hardly, as I am an atheist
Modernity is playing a semantic game here. Several posters here have given him numerous reasons why Israel should be boycotted. Modernity is unable to argue against any of these. Instead, he has adopted the tactic of demanding reasons for the specific choice of Israel over any other state.
It doesn’t work like that, Modernity. The question is “should Israel be boycotted”, not “which country should we boycott”? A boycott is not a ceremonial wooden spoon that is handed to one “winner”.
Disingeniously, he pretends to believe that people choose to boycott a country, not on a case by case basis, but instead by:
comparing every nation state in the world in some kind of evilness league table, and “picking” a “winner” – one single country who one then opposes constantly, in every way possible, while simultaneously ignoring anything nasty happening anywhere else in the world.
In Modernity’s world, one does not say “I see Palestinian academics are asking for a boycott of Israel – having looked at what goes on in Israel, I see there are grounds for a boycott”.
In Modernity’s mind, we all think “I see Palestinian academics are asking for a boycott of Israel – let me ignore them for now and instead devise some set of legalistic criteria, judge every country in the world by these arbitrary standards and pick one that I think is top of the nastyness hit parade, regardless of whether anyone in that state has asked us to boycott it. I think I’ll pick…[looks up at swastika on wall]…Israel. Right, now I’ve entered into a monogamous boycott relationship with Israel, I will turn a blind eye to all other countries human rights abuses and take no part in any other campaigns”.
Naturally, as Modernity sees boycotting as ‘singling out’ one country on the planet, any proposed boycott of Israel seems to his warped reasoning, like anti-semitism.
I’ll bet you a tenner Modernity ignores this, and continues to repeat questions that have already been answered, occasionally putting words in bold for no real reason.
Male Nurse wrote:
‘ll bet you a tenner Modernity ignores this,
funny enough, you’re correct, I tend to ignore your stuff, I saw enough of it at HP and it is all very borderline.
“sigh, hardly, as I am an atheist”
You try and make the claim that it’s perfectly legitimate to automatically suspect pro-boycotters as anti-semites because some anti-Israel neo-Nazis would support a boycott for their own ends. When I point out that anti-semitic Christian fundamentalists are anti-boycott and that the same argument applies to your position, you make the claim that it doesn’t, because you’re an athiest. I see no evidence of you “taking extra care” to distance yourself from Israel’s less right-on supporters.
I’m an athiest as well. If you can absolve yourself of any responsibility for bigots and racists who share your views on Israel by pointing out that you’re not one of them, then I can do the same. I am not an anti-semite, therefore it makes no difference to my position if some anti-semites would also support a boycott.
Unless you’re suggesting that all pro-boycott people are neo-Nazis? Which is what you’ve hinted at numerous times on this thread and, in fact, appears to be your only argument.
By the way, crusading athiesm, like the kind you support, has been responsible for an awful lot of deaths too, as anyone who knows about the history of Stalinist states can confirm. Given what you’ve said above, what is your position on the secularisation of Tibet by the “imperialist” Chinese?
“funny enough, you’re correct, I tend to ignore your stuff, I saw enough of it at HP and it is all very borderline.”
Borderline what? You fail to address anything in Male Nurse’s post, and accuse him of anti-semitism (not for the first time in this thread, either). Are we supposed to accept your protestations of impartiality at face value while you accuse anyone you don’t fancy arguing with of anti-semitism?