Writing about anything even remotely related to the Israel/Palestine conflict requires a careful step, which makes Resolution 50 from CUPE Ontario (the provincial wing of the Canadian Union of Public Employees) all the more open to debate.
The resolution-passed during a recent convention in Ottawa-signals CUPE Ontario’s inclusion in a global campaign for “boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination.” While it is within CUPE’s constitution to make such resolutions in solidarity with international workers, this is very much a loaded issue.
Though the resolution was passed unanimously at the meeting, it does not reflect a true consensus among CUPE Ontario’s constituents. While many support the decision, a number staunchly oppose it. Some members-such as Local 265-have renounced their union membership altogether in the aftermath.
While criticising Israel’s policies is not tantamount to anti-Semitism, it’s a very difficult topic to broach without the critic being perceived as such. In a media release, Jewish Vocational Services Toronto said the decision was “an attack upon the Jewish people and as such fans the flames of anti-Semitism,” and they aren’t the only ones who feel that way.
The resolution was made with particular concern for Israel’s construction of a security barrier in Gaza, referred to by opponents as an “Apartheid Wall.” The wall, which is supposed to prevent terrorists from entering Israel, violates international law, restricts the mobility of the Palestinian people, and claims more land for Israel than is rightfully within its control.
The alleged parallels between apartheid-era South Africa and modern Israel may have been part of what compelled CUPE to act decisively on this issue. However, many feel that the comparison is primarily a rhetorical one. While there are similarities between the living conditions of Palestinians and those of black South Africans under apartheid, they arose out of vastly different circumstances. To ignore this reality is disingenuous.
CUPE has a right to take a stand on international issues, if they relate to its mandate of safeguarding workers’ rights. But why take a firm position on such precarious ground? The Israel-Palestine conflict is an incredibly complex one amongst human rights issues, and it affects many of CUPE Ontario’s members intimately. The conflict is an intellectual matryoshka doll-for every answer there are infinitely more questions. It has the power to radically divide otherwise rational North Americans.
Some argue that a Western bias in favour of Israel makes it an obligation for groups that see the situation differently to act on behalf of Palestine. But if this is fundamentally an issue of human rights, there’s no reason to identify a “good guy” and a “bad guy.” The use of the term “apartheid” identifies Israel as the “bad guy”; it is an oversimplification that could be said to pander to irrationality.
Claims that Resolution 50 is fundamentally anti-Semitic, however, are rather narrow-minded. CUPE Ontario’s intention-exposing the hardships of the Palestinian people-is a noble one at heart, though the political left’s preoccupation with the matter tends to raise eyebrows here at home.
In Canada, we have the luxury of political safety and freedom of expression-we can choose to participate in critical discourse rather than pointing fingers. But taking firm action on an issue this volatile and politically divisive alienates people who might otherwise be interested in hearing CUPE’s position.
