For decades, the most prominent American unions were largely supportive of Israel. Today, though, amid a resurgence of the American labor movement, some activists are urging their unions to call for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and succeeding — a change that reflects a broader generational shift.
But many unions are divided over what stance to take or whether to take any stance at all.
Some American labor leaders have remained supportive of Israel’s war against Hamas, and moved swiftly to condemn Hamas’s attacks on Oct. 7. They are dismayed by the views of a younger generation of organizers who in some cases oppose Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
“There has been a shift in society, and that’s reflected in the labor movement as it is every place else,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Jewish Labor Committee and head of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union.
This just in: murdering civilians is unpopular and makes people question their friendship with a bully.
Then when someone goes, “Please don’t kill civilians” they shout “STOP BEING A ANTISEMITE.”
Regardless of your stance on what is going on in Gaza, I don’t think unions should be picking a side either way.
The point of a union is to represent the worker toward their employer. This is most effective if all workers stand together.
Taking a stance on a matter that is so politically controversial as the situation in Gaza/Israel, only serves to divide workers, reducing the effectiveness of unions to achieve their core purpose.If individuals (or groups of individuals) want to support or denounce either Israel or Palestine that should be their choice, but I don’t think a union should get involved in that.
Hard disagree. Unions have taken political stances on numerous occasions throughout history. It’s one of the most effective tools the working class has to fight imperialism. Imperialism is something the working class should fight against.
So why have unions supported Israel for decades?
I never said I approved of that either. I’m just voicing my opinion on what the role of unions is / should be.
That wasn’t my question.
Your theory, that unions should avoid picking a side, does not have any basis in how actual unions act in the real world.
Why do you think that is?
Wow. Reading comprehension is a tough.
🙄
They had so much to say about why unions should remain neutral, but I keep coming back to the fact that the unions have never been neutral. So either the poster believes they have cracked the code and all other union leaders are too stupid to grasp it, or something else is going on.
I think you don’t really have a point and are simply looking to argue.
It was very clearly stated in the comment what the intent of the comment was.
The intent of their comment was “voicing my opinion on what the role of unions is / should be.”
I asked why unions, in the real world, do not behave that way. Why are actually existing unions acting in roles that they do not believe unions should? If that’s what the role of unions is or should be, then in the real world unions would try to fulfill that role. They do not.
There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of unions that I’m trying to highlight by showing how wrong it is!
I agree with this. World conflict, culture war bullshit and other wedge issues are used too often by oligarch funded media to make the working class fight with each other and forget who are really pulling the strings.
Even if I feel strongly about a particular issue, the union should be focused on getting fair working conditions for its members, and separate advocacy organizations should be focused on spreading awareness on the topic(s) they are concerned with.
World conflict, culture war bullshit and other wedge issues are used too often by oligarch funded media to make the working class fight with each other and forget who are really pulling the strings.
Divide and conquer is one of the oldest games in the book.
Some issues are obviously more urgent than others and a total massacre is one. No members are gonna disagree with that.
Unions made a huge mistake when they welded themselves to the military-industrial complex. Glad to hear the trend might reverse.
Of course there’s a sign about everyone’s favorite boogyman, AIPAC. No one likes to mention the billions in Saudi, UAE, and Qatari influence that drive anti-Israel movements.
Israel’s own genocidal actions drive anti-Israel movements while AIPAC is trying to unseat progressives.
Are Saudi, UAE, or Qatar trying to get anti-Israel politicians elected? Anywhere? lol
Plus it’s not like anyone is really supportive of those terrible governments either.
AIPAC is such a tiny player in politics, which is obvious to anyone who can do basic addition. They do make a convenient scapegoat to distract from the real power players influencing US policy.
The USA gives twice the arms to Saudi Arabia than Israel. Ten times more Houthis have been killed than Gazans. At least twice as many are displaced.
I’m not defending AIPAC. I’m pointing out that there is a bizarre and disproportionate vilification of one of the smallest players in the game. AIPAC is smaller than the Real Estate, Finance, or Oil lobby. When was the last time you saw a protester with a sign condemning the Susquehanna International Group, or Thiel Capital, or National Assn of Realtors? They all dwarf the size of the little Israel lobby.
Think about who the distraction benefits.
I think AIPAC is blamed too much for American support, because America has a special interest in Israel already. If Israel didn’t exist, America would have to create it to serve her interests. That’s not a secret, but blaming AIPAC is a way that Americans try to absolve our government from the evil it commits i.e. “it’s not America’s fault, it’s those damn lobbyists!”
We shouldn’t blame AIPAC for our own government supporting genocide. That’s just ordinary American policy.
But uh, the recent pledge of $100M is more than any of the groups you listed as well - though who knows, maybe the others will start putting up more cash to compete. Also, do they actually do anti-Israel lobbying? Pretty sure that’s just oil lobbying.
Do you think that’s also why there is such a disproportionate focus on the Israel-Hamas war as opposed to others in Yemen, Sudan, etc. that have such a higher humanitarian cost?
I think the focus comes from how important Israel is to the US. Israel is the 51st state, all those other countries are just vassals on the periphery of the empire. That’s why Biden can say he’ll make Saudi a pariah, yet Israeli visitors have visa free travel to the US.
Think of it more like the Iraq War than a foreign war. It’s not really just some foreign country attacking another - it’s us vs them.
