Israeli and Palestinian Unionists Reach Agreement

[cyu]

Although I don't know how "reformist" these unions are, it's good to see not everyone is trying to kill the other side there...

Excerpts from http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article2334

Histadrut and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU)... have reached a landmark agreement to protect the rights of Palestinian workers employed by Israeli employers, and to base future relations on negotiations, dialogue and joint initiatives to advance “fraternity and coexistence between the two peoples.”

“...Decent work is a foundation stone for political and economic justice, and we will now be in a position to devote even more attention to tackling the appalling state of the Palestinian economy and playing a fuller part in the quest for justice, fairness and democratic rights in the building of a Palestinian state.”

“...The outcome of our dialogue with the PGFTU can only help achieve this, and help lay the foundations for future cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian trade unions and progress in our shared quest for justice, peace and prosperity for all in the region...”

[Reuben]

Although this is only a start - and although Israeli trade unions have a history of complicty with with zionism and anti-palestinian racism - this is excellent news. Many on the left are in my opinion to quick to dismiss the potential for the Israeli working class to play a progressive role in the middle east.

It is common on the left to make comparisons between Israel and Apartheid South Africa. Such comparisons are perhaps more useful from a moral perspective, than as a means of analysing the objective situation in Israel. In apartheid south africa the majority of the population were black. The apartheid regime had siezed the land and kept the peope, keen to tap in to the vast reserve of cheap labour power. In this context white workers were in a position to benefit materially from the super-exploitation of black workers.

In israel the situation is of course very different. Israel began with a vast round of ethnic cleansing, and today Palestinians make up only a minority of those who work in Israel. Yes Jewish farmers and kibbutzim benefit from the massive land grab. But in 21st century capitalism, the key economic resource is not land but of course labour.

Few on the left understood the significance of Amir Peretz's victory a few years back in the leadership contest for the Labour party. Though he turned out to be a bastard, his victory was perhaps indicative of important shifting currents within Israeli society. While the Israeli party had been traditionally dominated by middle class self-proclaimed peaceniks, and Likud had drawn much of its backing from the Israeli working class, he won on a ticket of explicitally linking the occupation of palestinian territory with social inequality and social deprivation inside Israel.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Although this is only a start - and although Israeli trade unions have a history of complicty with with zionism and anti-palestinian racism - this is excellent news. Many on the left are in my opinion to quick to dismiss the potential for the Israeli working class to play a progressive role in the middle east.

It is common on the left to make comparisons between Israel and Apartheid South Africa. Such comparisons are perhaps more useful from a moral perspective, than as a means of analysing the objective situation in Israel. In apartheid south africa the majority of the population were black. The apartheid regime had siezed the land and kept the peope, keen to tap in to the vast reserve of cheap labour power. In this context white workers were in a position to benefit materially from the super-exploitation of black workers.

In israel the situation is of course very different. Israel began with a vast round of ethnic cleansing, and today Palestinians make up only a minority of those who work in Israel. Yes Jewish farmers and kibbutzim benefit from the massive land grab. But in 21st century capitalism, the key economic resource is not land but of course labour.

Few on the left understood the significance of Amir Peretz's victory a few years back in the leadership contest for the Labour party. Though he turned out to be a bastard, his victory was perhaps indicative of important shifting currents within Israeli society. While the Israeli party had been traditionally dominated by middle class self-proclaimed peaceniks, and Likud had drawn much of its backing from the Israeli working class, he won on a ticket of explicitally linking the occupation of palestinian territory with social inequality and social deprivation inside Israel.


For quite a while Palestine was a source of cheap labor. Until maybe the second intifada, Israel had a grand old time utilizing Palestine labor to undercut wages throughout the country. However, the Second Intifada told the isreali ruling class that Palestine was a "mad dog" of sorts. They could not properly control Palestine, so they began walling it off, and importing large amounts of foreign guest workers.

Palestinians have become something of a surplus population. They are too dangerous to rely on as a steady source of cheap labor. But they remain useful as a pressure valve to divide and distract the working class. Whenever workers get upset, you can shuttle them off to the Occupied Territories and settle them on a plot. This ties them into a long term, symbiotic, relationship with the state. Supporting the ruling class so that they might gain more from the OT. I believe, Israel currently occupies Palestinian land primarily for this purpose.

[Yehuda Stern]

Israeli trade-unions do not have a "history" of supporting racist Zionism - they support to this day the Zionist regime and all of its actions, wars, and attacks on Palestine. On the other hand, most Palestinian trade unions are dominated by Fatah, Israel's agent. So this accord is nothing to celebrate, as it gives the unions which support the Zionist occupier the legitimacy it needs from Palestinian trade unionists in the eyes of leftist gentlemen such as yourselves.


Few on the left understood the significance of Amir Peretz's victory a few years back in the leadership contest for the Labour party. Though he turned out to be a bastard, his victory was perhaps indicative of important shifting currents within Israeli society. While the Israeli party had been traditionally dominated by middle class self-proclaimed peaceniks, and Likud had drawn much of its backing from the Israeli working class, he won on a ticket of explicitally linking the occupation of palestinian territory with social inequality and social deprivation inside Israel.Neither the first nor second part of this argument is correct. Amir Peretz was elected to be the chairman of Labor by the membership of Labor - which the same membership it always had. His chairmanship did not win many new members for Labor of any class, much less, the working class and the poor, who didn't vote for any candidate this time around either.

The claim that Amir Peretz won on a ticket of linking the occupation with social questions is perhaps one of the most comical things I've heard in my life. First of all, he did not "win" - Labor was the second largest party in an election where just about 50% of the electorate voted. Peretz's campaign did not even mention the word "occupation" - it spoke amorphously about peace, and the main slogan was "fighting terrorism, winning in education." One should really know what one is talking about before making far-fetched claims about radicalization among Israeli workers.

[Reuben]

well I must admit my knowledge of the period was restricted to my memory of what i had read in british broadsheets at the time. WHen i said win, i was referring to his victory in the labour leadership contest, not in the general election.

[Reuben]

. Peretz's campaign did not even mention the word "occupation" - it spoke amorphously about peace, and the main slogan was "fighting terrorism, winning in education." One should really know what one is talking about before making far-fetched claims about radicalization among Israeli workers.

So presumably the BBC journalist who quoted Peretz in this 2005 article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4425260.stm) was simply making it up.

"I see the occupation as an immoral act, first of all," he is quoted as saying. "I want to end the occupation not because of Palestinian pressure, but because I see it as an Israeli interest."

[Yehuda Stern]

No, but this was also a long time before the election campaign started.