Every last thing about Gary Spedding’s argument in favour of boycotting Histadrut, Israel’s free and democratic Israeli trade union movement, is wrong. Speeding does not so much put a left foot forward as trip over his own feet.
Prof. Alan Johnson is the editor of Fathom: for a deeper understanding of Israel and the region, and is the author of The New Histadrut: Peace, Social Justice and the Israeli Trade Unions
“Quite simply, Histadrut is not a progressive force inside Israel today. Through boycotting, the international community sends a critical message [about] Histadrut’s unwillingness to challenge right-wing anti-Palestinian policies held by Israel’s government.” – Gary Spedding, Left Foot Forward, 3 July 2013
Every last thing about Gary Spedding’s argument in favour of boycotting Histadrut, Israel’s free and democratic Israeli trade union movement, is wrong. Speeding does not so much put a left foot forward as trip over his own feet.
It is wrong to claim the Histadrut is not a progressive force in Israel today
It is the Israeli TUC. It leads the fight for workers’ rights and job security in Israel. It unites over 700,000 union members in one organisation regardless of religion, race or gender and has organised Arab workers with full membership since 1959 and the super-exploited migrant workers since 2009.
It supported Israel’s 2011 mass street protests for social justice and in 2012 organised a successful four-day General Strike in solidarity with Israel’s most vulnerable contract workers.
It is wrong to say the Histadrut does not challenge the Israeli government
It supports a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Histadrut has called on the Israeli government ‘to make concessions and take courageous and concrete steps towards attaining peace.
More importantly, it is engaged in making a reality of two-states. It signed a landmark agreement with the Palestinian national trade union centre, the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) in 2008 under the auspices of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). That agreement was hailed by the TUC and the International Labour Organisation.
When Unison sent a delegation to Israel and the Territories in 2010 it reported that
“The PGFTU in particular said that UNISON should maintain links with the Histadrut so that we could specifically put pressure on them to take a more vocal public stance against the occupation and the settlements. [The other independent Israeli pro-labour organisations] Kav laOved, Koach laOvdim and WAC/Ma’an all felt that international trade union influence on the Histadrut was essential.” [Yes, the Unison leadership was unable to carry its own report at conference, but that does not alter one jot what the Israeli and Palestinian trade unionists told the delegation.]
However, even if the Histadrut didn’t challenge the government, it would still be wrong to think this a good reason to boycott the Histadrut
Free and democratic trade unions do not boycott other free and democratic trade unions because they are not left-wing enough. That way madness lies; it is not how we do things in the international labour movement.
We do not punish trade unions for the policies of their governments. Even if unions support reactionary government policies – as most American trade unions did during the Vietnam war – we do not boycott them!
As Michael Leahy, general secretary of Community Union, wrote in the preface to the pamphlet ‘The New Histadrut: Peace, Social Justice and the Israeli Trade Unions’ (2012):
“Breaking links with the Israeli trade union movement would be a radical departure from the best internationalist traditions of our movement, in favour of a new kind of gesture politics. Progressive voices in the British trade union movement have traditionally refused to boycott other free trade unions because of what their governments do.
We have not gone in for gesture politics. We have preferred engagement, worker-to-worker links, practical solidarity and, yes, a critical dialogue. Those traditions have served us well. We should stick to them.”
Oh, and when Spedding says “the Histadrut fails to represent [Palestinian Arabs], especially in the occupied Territories” he trips over his own feet one more time. In fact, The Histadrut does not organise Palestinian workers in the West Bank by agreement between the two federations.
Nonetheless, in October 2007 the Histadrut’s campaign to apply Israeli labor laws to Palestinian workers who work in the settlements was successful. As a direct result of the Histadrut petition to the Courts, Israeli employers in West Bank settlements must now provide improved work benefits according to (much better) Israeli, rather than Jordanian law.
Former TUC general secretary Brendan Barber has praised the two federations for “carving a path that political leaders could now follow”.
Spedding’s boycott delusion would make that impossible. Guy Ryder, the ITUC general secretary said Israeli-Palestinian trade union co-operation has an important “contribution to make in promoting peace and mutual understanding in the Middle East.”
Spedding’s boycott would send all that into reverse. That’s why not one Global Federation or national centre supports breaking links with the Histadrut. Not one. And nor does the ITUC.
The alternative to Spedding’s boycott is critical engagement
We can restart the trilateral delegations of unionists from Israel, Palestine and the UK, build concrete links with both the Histadrut and the PGFTU (exchanges, branch twinning, awareness-raising and financial support to trade unions in Israel and Palestine is the real way forward.
We can learn from the model of the FBU-Histadrut-PGFTU cooperation. We can support all steps, however small, to unite Israeli and Palestinian workers.
And we can support a just settlement based on mutual respect and acknowledgement of national rights. To that end, we should review the TUC’s relationship with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and consider supporting progressive organisations such as One Voice.
Why? Because the TUC supports the two-state solution: two states for two peoples, a secure Israel living in peace alongside a viable Palestine. The PSC does not. One Voice does.
The internationalist traditions of the British trade union movement have traditionally been all about engagement, building bridges, forging worker-to-worker links, delivering practical solidarity, and comradely criticism when it is due.
To break links with the Histadrut would be a giant step towards a different kind of ‘internationalism’ – alien to the British trade unions, demonising one party, glamorising the other, stoking divisions on the ground, and isolating the TUC from the constructive work of its global partners and the ITUC.
The TUC and ITUC have worked for over forty years to build bridges between the Histadrut and the PGFTU. Those efforts bore fruit in 2008, with a landmark agreement between the two federations. We should not let sectarians and political activists in the West ruin all that work.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
15 Responses to “In defence of the Histadrut: a response to Gary Spedding”
Roy
It is not that I think you are dishonest, but my skepticism is due to the fact that I believe I have ample amount of knowledge on the Histadrut and I’m unfamiliar with even 1 instance where the Histadrut had represented the government.. so I search Google, in Hebrew and English, still couldn’t find an example of the Histadrut representing the government.
I would even say further, that the Histadrut has no power to decide on anything on behalf of the state, so your claim is pretty explosive because what you claim would actually be illegal under Israeli law. So, if you have proof of your claim, I;m sure that the State Comptroller and Attorney General would be happy to hear about it and take proper action.
It is more reasonable that your own experience was about the Histadrut acting as a mediator (something you have said yourself) which is very very different from acting as a representative of the state (by definition a mediator is not a representative of the sides being mediated) and especially different from acting as a state agency.
The Histadrut using it’s familiarity and connections with Israeli bureaucracies, ministers and officials to bring about a common goal is something you should be congratulating and not denouncing and it is completely unrelated to it being a representative of the state.
Roy
And I want to add that, first, of course the Histadrut is not free from criticism, just like any other organization, but criticism is very different from boycott.
Secondly, to say that “As far as the policies toward the occupation the two speak from much the same script” is completlly false. I refer you to the Histadrut itself regardin Gaza.
http://www.histadrut.org.il/index.php?page_id=1801
Lee Butcher
I think first hand experience is much more compelling evidence than a Google search, and everyone involved in the process were under no illusions that the Histadrut were not acting as a representative for the Israeli state. At no point did we see evidence of COGAT being challenged by Histadrut, and the two were working very much hand in hand.
A free trade union movement, like the TUC, would never act in that function for the British military. That I think is a vitally important difference, and given that the Histadrut were once an important element of the state (which has only recently diminished) it is fair to conclude that connections remain strong.
That is very much the point, the Histadrut’s connections with the Israeli state open them up to criticism. That common goal they are seeking is the continued occupation of Palestine and the misbehaviour that accompanies that. When we sought to support Palestinians in the West Bank we had to go via the Histadrut. As a result they were acting to support the Israeli state in that matter, which saw numerous delays and problems in achieving a relatively simple aim.
Roy
Lets just make some things clear:
– Again, what you describe is not the Histadrut being a representative of the state. What you are complaining about is the Histadrut not being critical enough of the government regarding the occupation, something that was addressed by the author of this piece.
– Your assumptions that the Histadrut never challenged COGAT, is just an assumption. you don’t really know if the Histadrut challenged COGAT in their negotiations, nor what the Histadrut did or didn’t do to change COGAT policies.
– The fact that British unions and the UK government cooperation is low, isn’t necessarily a good thing as there are many examples where workers rights got hurt by this lack of cooperation.
– the Histadrut was an importent elemnt of the Labor party, not the government. your confusion comes from the fact that the Labor was in power for the first 3 decades of Israel existance. and yes I agree that it wasnt a good thing, but today, and for several decades now, it’s roll is very different.
Lee Butcher
As I have said everyone involved in the process, including the FCO, were of the impression that Histadrut were operating as a representative of the Israeli state. Whether that is the case formally is a different matter, but they were anything but an independent organisation. They were acting as much on behalf of the Israeli state as COGAT. No one came away with the impression that Histadrut held differing views from COGAT. They were working alongside COGAT, not separate from them. Some of the barriers we faced were indeed put up by the Histadrut; they were more than a mediating party but an active participant.
Theoritically they may be separate bodies, but in practice, in this matter, they were representing the Israeli state. This was made very clear to us by the Israelis themselves. Their theoretical structural relationship is largely a moot point if in practice they operate in a different manner.
When it is a matter of cooperating with illegal activities and military occupation than the Histadrut’s decision to work with the Israeli state (and, as I have repeated, in my experience have actively participate in their policies toward Palestine) they have opened themselves up to the same criticism as the Israeli state. If they opt to work so closely with them that differentiation is difficult to make than it is right and proper than efforts to end Israel’s poor behaviour involves them as well.