Vol. 73/No. 42      November 2, 2009

General Secretary Brendan Barber described the TUC’s “vision of the future for the Middle East” as “A two-state solution. The Road Map. Justice for the Palestinians. Security for Israel.” These are all political themes pushed by Washington and its imperialist allies as well. Barber called for “targeted action—aimed at goods from the illegal settlements and at companies involved in the occupation and the wall.”

Prior to the adoption of this position there were differences between officials of various unions over how far to go to put pressure on the Israeli government. A motion from the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) proposed a broader boycott, disinvestment, and sanctions against Israeli products. The GMB union opposed the wider sanctions.

The TUC General Council statement that was adopted reads, “To increase the pressure for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories, and the removal of the separation wall and the illegal settlements, we will support a boycott (where trade union members should not put their own jobs at risk by refusing to deal with such products) of those goods and agricultural products that originate in illegal settlements.”

All the positions reflected class collaborationism and British chauvinism, presenting the British government as playing a progressive role in altering Tel Aviv’s course and the Palestinians solely as victims of a brutal regime. They call on the governments of the United Kingdom, United States, European Union, and Israel to resolve the Palestinian issue, while reducing the role of the Palestinian people to one of formal relations between the TUC, Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, and Histadrut (the General Federation of Labor in Israel).

In his address, Barber explicitly pointed to the “key role” of the UK and U.S. governments. “President Obama is now trying to move things forward, and we all wish him every success,” Barber commented.

“We have a history of supporting boycotts, such as the one against apartheid in South Africa. There is no doubt that had an effect,” Fire Brigades Union President Mick Shaw told the conference. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign described the TUC sanctions as a landmark decision.

The analogy with the mass sanctions movement against apartheid in South Africa is commonly made but is inaccurate. The call for international sanctions against apartheid South Africa was made by the leadership of the African National Congress, a mass, revolutionary democratic movement. The call was neither a pressure tactic nor a protest of the heinous nature of apartheid, but served as a powerful tool to strengthen the fight of the toilers themselves in their struggle for a non-racial democratic South Africa, a revolutionary course for a new South Africa for all its citizens.

The TUC sanctions campaign against Israel, on the other hand, asks workers and others to back imperialist governments in their plans to further consolidate the division of the region rather than acting in solidarity with the region’s toilers in building unity and a movement that can lead the struggle for a democratic, secular Palestine.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home