Israeli fears of serious damage from trade union boycotts

Unions Against Israel - Port Workers
Daily summary of the Hebrew media Mon 25 July 2011
by Shahar Ginosar in Yedioth Ahronoth 22 July 2011

A few weeks ago a closed meeting was held on this matter that was attended by Israel's business elite, and the warning calls that it issued were unusual. Danny Gillerman, formerly Israeli's ambassador to the UN, who was also the chairperson of the Federation of the Chambers of Commerce, talked about a "catastrophe" for Israel. Idan Ofer, owner of the Israel Corporation, called to take an initiative to prevent a harsh blow to exports, on which half of the Israeli economy is based. The new reality, he said, "will significantly endanger a great number of jobs and households." 

A huge ship belonging to the Zim company slowly approached a major port in South Africa. The captain was a Polish citizen, the flag of Antigua in the Caribbean flew on the deck —but the cargo was entirely blue and white, products of Israel.

There are a number of workers' unions at this port, and after a rapid consultation among themselves, they decided unanimously not to unload the cargo, and even declared this to the local media.

After that they tried to learn when exactly the ship would be docking at the port, which turned out to be a complicated task: the crew on board had already received initial reports on what to expect, and began diversion attempts. The control tower at the port was given different dates for the docking. It was impossible to know when the ship would be arriving exactly, says Patrick Craven, the unions' spokesperson, but we were determined. We wanted to send a message that we would do everything to ensure that goods from Israel not enter.

Q: Doing this will hurt a great many Israelis. Does that not bother you?
PC: That's the idea, to hurt them. We reached the conclusion that your government only understands economic damage, and we will do everything possible for that to happen. We are promoting this all around the world, and when your dispute with the Palestinians blows up, this will no doubt help us a lot.

Craven's organization is called the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions, COSATU, and it encompasses almost two million workers. Like other similar organizations, it acts completely independently in the international arena, and adopts positions separately from the diplomatic track. Its directors are unimpressed by governments or international resolutions, and mainly give an accounting to their own members and to themselves. Craven, incidentally, is a relatively nice spokesperson. His predecessor issued much harsher statements until he was recently convicted of incitement against Jews.

The above incident in South Africa took place in February 2009. About a year ago it was again possible to get a sense of the power of such organizations, after the IDF's takeover of the Mavi Marmara, when it was decided in a number of large ports world over not to unload goods from Israel—but only for a brief warning period. This step was declared, among others, by a large Indian port, in Sweden and other European states and a large port in the US. Most of us, so it appears, did not notice this at the time, because of other international events.

Organizations such as COSATU and their ilk the world over are taking action so that in the next round, the outcome will be different, in an attempt to affect the Israeli economy and to truly hurt it—so that the scenario that even President Shimon Peres warned against this month will come to pass. Peres said that if the government did not act, "no boycott will be necessary, it will be enough for ports in Europe and Canada to stop unloading goods from Israel."

A few weeks ago a closed meeting was held on this matter that was attended by Israel's business elite, and the warning calls that it issued were unusual. Danny Gillerman, formerly Israeli's ambassador to the UN, who was also the chairperson of the Federation of the Chambers of Commerce, talked about a "catastrophe" for Israel. Idan Ofer, owner of the Israel Corporation, called to take an initiative to prevent a harsh blow to exports, on which half of the Israeli economy is based. The new reality, he said, "will significantly endanger a great number of jobs and households."

Ofer is the first to warn that the Zim ships he owns carry a hefty chunk of Israeli exports. The company's directors have encountered incidents and know what the nightmare scenarios for Israel's economy could look like.

In an attempt to understand what is liable to happen under these circumstances, we approached the relevant figures in the international arena directly. On the one side, we spoke to the organizations that design the delegitimization campaigns against Israel, which wish to hurt Israel and to create great pressure. On the other hand, we also spoke to other organizations that are acting to help Israel reduce the damage that can be expected. The power of the latter is limited, but they are there, and may definitely have an influence.

Our campaign encompassed several continents and we returned with a fairly depressing forecast. Everyone involved in the matter, both those trying to save the situation and the opposite, are confident that this time it will be a lot more complicated for Israel; that there is a danger of deterioration, which will indeed cause Israel damage.

The intensity of the actions against Israel depends, of course, on how the future conflict in the region is depicted in the world. The security establishment assumes that if the impasse [in the peace process] leads to an outbreak of violence, it will of course be affected by the Arab spring of nations.

"The most meaningful difference in this context," says Yitzhak Eitan, who was the OC Central Command in the last clash, "is that the Palestinians realize that in order to achieve an international effect, they have to focus on mass demonstrations against the settlements, with the IDF in the middle." And Eitan is not alone. The security establishment is also talking about one of the most major scenarios they have ever prepared for.

Representatives of organizations in the world that act to help Israel, believe that this battle will give a great advantage to those who wish to boycott Israel and to take steps against it.

"We are still able to explain Israel," says Eric Lee, a major activist helping Israel in Britain. "And in a lot of matters, we are also able to persuade people in the hostile unions. For example, in regard to the danger from Hamas and Iran, which are not liked by any union. But there are subjects that even the attempt to justify them intensifies Israel's isolation. A civilian clash in the territories or in the settlements will definitely make it difficult and will cause great damage."

We will relate to organizations such as those of Eric Lee later, as well as the strong battle that will take place between them and such organizations as COSATU in South Africa, but first we must understand how the mechanism of promoting sanctions works.

Like in Israel, in every state there are workers' unions that represent millions throughout the world. Like in Israel's Histadrut, in every large union there is an "international department," by means of which activity is carried out in parallel with diplomacy. This takes place with no connection to the governments or to the Foreign Ministry, and these organizations adopt independent positions, and sometimes take initiatives and real action.

Once every few years all the representatives go to an international congress, and recently, along with their natural focus on workers' rights, matters relating to the conflict in the Middle East were also raised. This is the "orderly" track of trying to impose sanctions, in which Israel has managed very well until now, thanks to a number of large unions that take its side, like the Americans, the Canadians and the Germans, which act together with the Histadrut and its chairperson, Ofer Eini. A year ago, for example, such a congress was held in Vancouver, Canada, and a proposal for a sweeping boycott of Israeli goods was rebuffed.

But, in tandem, there is also the "wild," spontaneous track, in which unions react quickly to current affairs, when their members are angry at Israeli policy. This is the more dangerous track, which we first receive a taste of after Operation Cast Lead, when the Zim ship encountered difficulties when entering South Africa.

We also encountered this about a year ago, after the flotilla to Gaza incident. Israeli ships discovered that in several ports, the workers had decided not to unload Israeli goods, as a warning signal, for periods that sometimes lasted as long as two weeks. This happened in Sweden, Norway, India and even in Oakland in the US, where the American dock workers declared that this was the first step against an Israeli ship and that they were forgoing their salaries that day.

In India, the incident took place in the port city of Cochin, where a demonstration of workers was also organized next to the offices of Zim, when a ship named Livorno was approaching. Its cargo had already been unloaded on a barge that was approaching the port, but the unions announced that they would prevent it from being handled.

At the demonstration, among the people who spoke was the secretary general of the port workers union and the vice president of the water workers federation in India. "This is a warning of what can be expected in the future," said the secretary of the union of the transport workers, Kunju Jamal. "There were representatives of all the unions at the port who came to show what we think about your government. The Israeli goods were eventually handled, but if, in the future, we see violence in the Middle East, we will have to stop receiving Israeli goods. Don't think that this will happen exactly in September. It could also happen half a year later or at some other time, but it will happen. The unions that demonstrated here against Zim, they will decide how to act."

India is a relatively moderate country. Compared to Jamal, P. S. Ashique, the president of the union, spoke to us this week in a conciliatory tone, and invited Israelis to talk to him and said that the boycott was a one-time event and promised: next time, we will make do with demonstrations.

The more difficult problem for Israel is the professional unions whose determined action is liable to affect the moderate critics of Israel, which have sufficed with demonstrations up until now. That, for example, is the situation in Norway, where the transport union decided a year ago not to unload goods from Israel. When we talked to the president of this union, Jan Siversten, we encountered invective that we prefer not to put into writing.

Before hanging up on the grounds that we "support the Jews," he explained his odd program for helping the Palestinians by means of more flotillas to Gaza: "If more people like me are killed by your army," he explain, "in other words, if civilians from countries in Europe are hurt, then the world will wake up. This will cause a change against Israel. I am willing to fight alongside the Palestinians shoulder to shoulder, personally."

Anyone trying to understand what is liable to happen if the impasse continues after September, must take into account the determination of the union leaders such as Siversten, or his South Africa counterpart. The South Africa spokesperson explained to us, incidentally that the decision to define Israel as the "Jewish" state in 1948 after the Holocaust was a "mistake" by the UN.

The Norwegian, like him, enthusiastically supports a boycott and is confident that if another clash breaks out in the territories, the messages from him and his colleagues world over will be relayed easily. "The union is already talking to companies in Norway," he explained, "in order to organize a halt to all imports from Israel. A lot of Norwegians don't buy Israeli goods if they have an alternative. It's true that a boycott will hurt Israeli civilians, but you have to pay the price of your political decisions."

It seems today that these boycotts by the unions have always been around, but this is a phenomenon that began to spread only from 2007. Then, on the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War, many unions marked this date, and not because they were celebrating Jerusalem's liberation. For them, they explain, this date underscores the fact that 44 of the 65 years of existence of the State of Israel, the IDF has been ruling over a large Palestinian population.

To battle this trend, two years ago an organization was formed called TUFI, to promote Israeli-Palestinian trade union cooperation, which joined a similar organization called TULIP (trade unions linking Israel and Palestine). Their goal is to prevent boycotts, in an attempt to strengthen ties between Israel's Histadrut and the Palestinian labor unions. It is headed by two leaders, one of them is the secretary general of the current Australian union Paul Howes, and the other is Roger Lyons, who in the past was the president of the British Trade Union Congress.

Both of them sounded worried this week, and mainly they are concerned that the next time that they will have to come to Israel's defense, the task will be impossible. The strengthening of the support for a boycott is liable to bring, for example, the Norwegians to influence their colleagues from Sweden, who a year ago also announced that they would not unload goods from Israel for two weeks. The chairperson of the Swedish union Bjorn Borg told us that as far as it were up to him, this was a one-time event and it was not likely to recur.

"My goal is not to fight the hardest countries," explains the secretary general of the Australian union, Paul Howes. "You can't influence the most radical unions, which compare Israel to apartheid. That's a lost cause, but my intent is to prevent this from spilling over to more countries. It has to be said honestly that the struggle has become very complicated. Among other reasons, because today there is no country that accepts the expansion of settlement in the territories, and that's why it is a lot harder for us to deal with the anger and to defend you so as to prevent a boycott."

Howes, it should be said, has come under personal attack in Australia for his support for Israel and has taken criticism from activists in other unions.

One country that has become a principal player in promoting sanctions is Britain. The retrained British don't have a spontaneous style of boycotting goods at the docks, even though their dock workers union is considered, as far as Israel is concerned, as one of the toughest. But even in their restrained fashion, when they have decided to act, they were fairly effective.

"We approached the government in an orderly fashion," says Ben Moxham, who represents Britain in the European Trade Union Confederation, "and even though there were arguments on Israel's and the Palestinians' position, everyone agreed on one thing: that what should be boycotted now are the settlements. In practice, we began the process that is now spreading in Europe in which at first the goods are marked on the shelves with special labels, and after that they simply vanish. Today in England it is impossible to find such goods because of our cooperation with the British government. We have yet to make a decision about September, but it's clear that we've stopped talking and issuing statements to the press. We realized that this isn't helpful and we have to move to action."

As mentioned, the person who is trying to forestall actions by the general congress of the British unions is Eric Lee, who coordinates with Israel's Histadrut, and is one of the founders of TUFI. Lee is not a union leader, but he is a well-known blogger and is active in workers' organization, who goes to meetings and who is invited to speak as the official representative to defend Israel and to provide information against the boycott.

A month ago he prepared for a public debate against the deputy general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union Hugh Lanning, who is considered a prominent figure in his activity against Israel's policy in Britain. Lee calls him a "Hamas supporter," among other reasons, because of his outspoken opposition to Israel's policy in Gaza and because of his connections with Palestinian organizations that support the idea of a Palestinian state.

A week before the debate, Lee sounded relaxed and optimistic and confident about his ability to succeed. "This will be a special debate," he told us. "It will be held in one of the only organizations in Britain that supports Israel. For Lanning, it will not be easy to speak there."

The subject of the debate was simple: a request to approve the position of a small union called Community, not to take anti-Israeli positions. In the exact phrasing, the representatives of 70,000 workers were asked to reject the attempt to turn the Israelis or the Palestinians into scapegoats.

Lee and Lanning took the stage and gave speeches, and then a vote was held. To Lee's disappointment, the pro-Israeli proposal was defeated by a fairly large majority. There is no point in trying to hide the scope of the defeat, he later wrote in his blog. The representatives were influenced by problematic reasoning.

To this day, it is important to stress that boycotts against Israel have mainly been of a symbolic nature. The decision of the workers at the Swedish port to not unload goods for two weeks was also a protest that could be contained and handled in a reasonable manner. It could be that this is the reason for the smugness displayed by high ranking Israeli officials, the most prominent of them being Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon, who scornfully rejects concerns of the damage that could be caused to Israel by international isolation. He says that all the talk on the subject is the initiative of figures in Israel who are trying to pressure the government into making concessions.

It is impossible to know, of course, what will happen and we can hope that Yaalon is right, but a thorough examination of the situation, and the trans-continental inquiry that we made in this tough arena, indicate that the possibility of a significant boycott is not the imagination of Israelis and is not a theoretical matter. Those who warn of this are at the forefront of the battle and are trying to help Israel.

In addition to the Australian Howes, Eric Lee and others, the person who best explains the picture is Roger Lyons, the former president of the British Trade Union Congress, who today is the president of Trade Unions for Israel. As of today, only products of the settlements are boycotted, he said, sounding worried, from his home, "but I know the unions very well, and this is liable to change quickly. A few weeks ago I went to the Israeli embassy in London and I warned that they have to understand the danger. To my regret, up until now the Israeli government has simply wasted time and put itself into a very difficult situation insofar as our ability to cope with the economic boycotts and to stop the unions in the world that are hostile toward Israel which will organize and cause true damage."