"Any disagreement with an employer, current or previous, is noted in their file and can make it difficult to obtain the security certificate required to work elsewhere inside a colony. Consequently, the Palestinians hesitate to demand that their rights in colony workplaces be respected."
May 13, 2024
Dear Marsha Barber,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to express serious concern regarding a recent op-ed titled “The student encampments make one clear demand. The problem is it almost certainly won’t help Gaza,” published on May 14 in Toronto Star.
At one point in the article, you write the following:
Sometimes the BDS movement does harm. When it targeted SodaStream nine years ago, the company closed its primary manufacturing plant on the West Bank where Jews and Arabs worked together…. Thecompany continued to prosper. But the 500 laid-off Palestinian workers, who’d been enjoying wages and benefits beyond anything they could expect from local companies, didn’t.
The factory was not merely “on the West Bank,” but instead within an illegal Israeli settlement in occupied Palestinian territory. As such, this column is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. There is an appreciable difference between the West Bank and illegal settlements.
Albeit subtle, the paragraph is incredibly degrading to Palestinians. Justifying the existence of a manufacturer on occupied Palestinian territory by asserting that Palestinians wouldn’t find any better elsewhere is offensive. On the first order, Israeli occupation and apartheid undermine Palestine’s economic activity through administrative, bureaucratic, and physical constraints.
Freedom of movement is generally accepted as a prerequisite for the pursuit of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The right to work, according to the UN, “depends to a large extent on the ability to move freely and to choose one’s residence.” The system of checkpoint and permit requirements, as well as the expansion of settlement infrastructure, limits and controls Palestinians’ movement in the Occupied Palestinian territory “beyond their immediate residential area.” Attaining these permits and getting an accurate read on the criteria by which they are issued is largely unavailable to the public. Being arbitrarily granted or denied entry into an area by Israeli authorities is humiliating and in stark violation of human rights. Further, the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian territory that departs from the Green Line, according to the Secretary-General, “impedes the rights of approximately 11,000 Palestinians residing there from living normal lives and enjoying the right to work, family life and medical treatment.”[1]
Israeli authorities have largely limited Palestinian access to their lands, forcing farmers to give up their land or switching to lower-yielding and less-labour intensive crops.[2] Given Israel’s monopoly on the administration of permits for resource extraction, little to no permits have been issue to Palestinian companies for exploitation of mineral resources, for example.[3]
These are just some of the ways Israeli occupation and apartheid in Palestine’s occupied territories have dampened their economic activity and independence. When you write that SodaStream provides wages beyond anything Palestinians could find locally, you naively absolve Israel of its responsibility as the oppressive occupier who has intentionally fostered an environment that keeps Palestine’s economy small and weak.
Another component of BDS that you neglect to mention is the fact that it was erected by Palestinians, for Palestinians. A range of civil society organizations, including labor unions, refugee networks, women’s organizations, and popular resistance committees in Palestine reached a broad consensus about the need for a sustained campaign for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. Inspired by South Africa’s struggle to abolish apartheid through similar means, the movement prioritizes total liberation of Palestine over potential adverse effects to which you refer, like Palestinians losing their jobs.
I find it deeply disrespectful for you to claim that a movement endorsed by Palestinian refugees, Palestinians under occupation, and Palestinians living in ’48 lands (Palestinians living in Israel), is somehow not aligned with the interest of Palestinians and their collective liberation.
You also write that this manufacturing site saw “Jews and Arabs working together.” Opting for the broad term “Arabs” when you’re referring to Palestinians is derogatory and inappropriate. Similarly, “Jews” isn’t necessarily the most accurate term; Israeli citizens is more fitting. This sentence also implies a social, political, and economic symmetry between Israelis and Palestinians working alongside each other, when that was certainly not the case. Although, in theory, Israeli labor norms apply equally to Palestinian workers, in practice, they are not fully implemented. Given the difficult economic situation in the Palestinian territories, many Palestinians have no other option than to work in the colonies to provide for their families. Moreover, Palestinians have minimal opportunities to exercise their rights within colony workplaces. To obtain work in a colony, they must provide a security certificate detailing their record according to Israeli authorities. Any disagreement with an employer, current or previous, is noted in their file and can make it difficult to obtain thesecurity certificate required to work elsewhere inside a colony. Consequently, the Palestinians hesitate to demand that their rights in colony workplaces be respected.
I urge you to consider the information I have compiled and edit your article as needed. Please reach out if you have any questions, as I’d be happy to elaborate on some of my points and hear your perspective.
Sincerely,
Rose Mardikian,
Media Analyst, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East