TUC publishes verbatim report on Israel/Palestine debate
The British Trades Union Congress (TUC) has published on its website a verbatim account of the debate which took place at its recent congress. It makes for compelling reading for all those concerned with peace in the Middle East.
None of the speakers represented what might be considered a pro-Israel, or even a balanced view. A number said things that were considerably more extreme than what was eventually passed by the congress. One speaker, for example, said:
“My union is delighted with FBU’s motion and we are pleased that the General Council’s statement clearly condemns Histadrat’s support for the killing of nearly 1,500 Palestinians in Gaza, but we do feel it would be healthy now to review the TUC’s relationship with Histadrat in the light of its current goals and policies, just as the time has come for a boycott of Israeli goods and for our government to stop supplying Israel with the arms they use against Palestinians. We believe that would be a balanced position to take.”
The same speaker managed to include the notorious comparisons between both Israel and South African apartheid, and Israel and the Nazi Third Reich, in the same paragraph:
“I would like to start by asking about that question of balance. When Germany invaded Poland the British outrage had to be balanced somehow. Did we demand balance in our condemnation of apartheid in South Africa? If not, why the constant demand for balance when dealing with the Israeli invasion of Gaza, its continuing blockade, and indeed the occupation of Palestinian territory in general?”
Attacks on the Histadrut, Israel’s national trade union centre, were explicit:
“It also seems that the Israeli Trade Union Movement was not moved either because Histadrut issued a statement in which they said that Israel had no choice but to respond to the repeated attacks and aggression as an act of justifiable self-defence. It is clear to the Histadrut that the culprit responsible for this situation is Hamas. We say that that statement at the very least raises a question about Histadrut. It is a genuinely independent organisation speaking on behalf of workers or is it a mouthpiece for the Israeli government: is it part of the solution or is it part of the problem? We are pleased to see in the General Council’s statement that they are now going to engage in discussions and report back on that issue.”
Not a single speaker spoke in defense of the Histadrut, nor of Israel’s right to self-defense, and no one spoke out against boycotts or the comparisons between Israel and apartheid or Nazi Germany.
Eric Lee