-

NUJ ADM: Should journalists boycott Israel? And can they?

Posted by Martin Stabe on 14 April 2007 at 14:03
Tags: Israel, NUJ

Blogging journalists have been reacting to the motion calling for a boycott of Israeli goods that was passed on Friday by the National Union of Journalists annual delegates meeting in Birmingham.

The ADM voted, 66 to 54, in favour of the call for a boycott, citing Israel’s “aggression” in Palestinian territories and its “savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon” as the rationale.

Blogging journalists’ reactions have so far been critical of the decision. Lloyd Shepherd looks forward to hearing about “similar boycotts of Saudi oil (abuse of women and human rights), Turkish desserts (limits to freedom of speech) and, of course, the immediate replacement of all stationery in the NUJ’s offices which has been made or assembled in China.”

Freelance Craig McGinty writes:

I AM a member of the NUJ and am wondering how boycotting any nation’s goods, whether it’s Israel, China or Umpah Lumpah Land will help improve the lot of both staff and freelance journalists.

Telegraph Washington correspondent Toby Harnden describes the boycott as “inane, ineffectual, counter-productive and insulting to the intelligence” and worries that many of the ADM motions betray a fixation with “trendy leftie” causes:

I am a member of the NUJ, though at times like this I wonder why. A union battling for better pay and conditions is one thing. But why should my dues be spent on anti-Israel posturing of which I and many other members want no part?

The wording of the motion condemning of Israel, Harnden argues, is “tendentious and politically-loaded propaganda that would be rightly edited out of any news story written in a newspaper that had any pretensions of fairness”.

One commenter on Harden’s blog notes that given Israel’s booming high-tech industry, boycotting the country could prove rather difficult:

[I]f the NUJ are serious about boycotting Israel, they should throw out their laptops and cellphones: all Windows software was and is developed in Israel, and the Motorola, Nokia and most other cellphone CIM’s are all made there too. Back to Underwood manual typewriters and two tin cans with a string for the Fourth Estate!

Anybody want to speak up in favour of this motion?

Update 17/4: This week’s Press Gazette leader says: “Stop the political posturing and look at the key issues“.

Related:

• Jobson beats the ban
• Journalists contracts specify required political views
• Hillary campaign excluded UK journalists, says Telegraph correspondent
• Shortlists revealed for online categories in British Press Awards

Tags: Israel, NUJ

Comments

Add your own comment

1. burmah toad |  14 April 2007 at 3:10pm

   I’m just very glad that I never bothered to join the NUJ. May i direct readers’ attention to the BAJ?

   Always done me proud when it comes to what you really need a union for - taking on the bosses.

   http://www.bajunion.org.uk/

2. JEANETTE FRIEDMAN |  14 April 2007 at 3:33pm

   Hey man, get rid of your computers and cell phones.
   if you are going to boycott Israeli products, dump your instant messaging, your cell phones, your medications for multiple sclerosis, stem cell research, and all decent products that have come out of Israel for the betterment of every single one of these Jew-hating journalists who think they can get away with their blatant antisemitism.

   If they weren’t such lying hypocrites, they wouldn’t forget to boycott every central and eastern European country, China, India, and every African country that craps on human rights for real.

   Oh, I forgot, those places don’t count–they can do what they want to kill people because they aren’t Jewish!!!!! You are only allowed to go after the Jews, because Hitler didn’t finish the job.

   Gee thanks. My 18-month old brother was murdered in Auschwitz by the like of what? White Europeans!!!!!

   Just like these white European idiot journalists–haters all!

3. utbah |  14 April 2007 at 4:41pm

   Crying wolf again?

   Do we not live in a democracy? People have every right to boycott states which opresses people.

   Didn’t we do that to South Africa?

4. Eugene David ...The One-M&hellip |  14 April 2007 at 5:10pm

   Occasionally there may be a good side to the Web’s instant opinion. Idiotic British JERNALISTS have voted to boycott Israel, and the reaction has been swift and strong. That we won’t hear about it otherwise owes to NEWS HACKS’ selfishness, but the next time a member of the perfession insists upon his disinterestedness we should ponder how much he truly is disinterested.

5. Doobers |  14 April 2007 at 5:25pm

   This simply destroys our credibility. This provides infinite ammo for all those who say the British press is antisemitic. And reading the wording of that text, they must be correct.

   You would think that journalists would be better informed, but no they regurgitate the hoary old “planned” conspiracy theory, AND PASS IT AS A RESOLUTION - IN CONVENTION ASSEMBLED!!

6. HaloScan.com - Comments&hellip |  15 April 2007 at 7:54am

   [...] occupy Gaza any more, but what the heck, it’s never too late to throw the Jew down the well. http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/…l-and-can-they/ Biodegradable | 15.04.07 - 2:53 am | [...]

7. David Guy |  15 April 2007 at 8:10am

   Fair’s fair. Do Israeli spokepeople now have the right to boycott NUJ journalists?

   I have heard that Israelis prefer to deal directly with Al-Jazeera. The Al-Jazeera position is clear and unambiguous; they don’t claim to be neutral and then act as propagandists AND they don’t misquote spokespeople.

8. Israel Matzav: Britain's &hellip |  15 April 2007 at 8:39am

   [...] What’s more interesting is that a general round-up of British journalists’ blogs also shows that most of them are opposed: Blogging journalists’ reactions have so far been critical of the decision. Lloyd Shepherd looks [...]

9. Work-related Blogs and Ne&hellip |  15 April 2007 at 9:57am

   Rival unions in bitter fight for control of AA workers  - 15-Apr-2007 Time, Marx and Engels, please: Historic pub under threat  - 15-Apr-2007 Nurses’ union launches attack on ‘uncosted’ NHS reforms  - 15-Apr-2007 NUJ ADM: Should journalists boycott Israel? And can they?  - 15-Apr-2007 Union meeting Newsquest bosses  - 15-Apr-2007

10. Adam Greene |  15 April 2007 at 10:46am

    At least we can now know that journalistic bias against Israel is official.

11. static squid&hellip |  15 April 2007 at 12:09pm

    might want to consider the difference between the Palestinian journalists’ act of principled solidarity and their own pissy political posturing. Some reaction Israel Matzav: Britain’s National Union of Journalists votes to boycott Israel Toby Harnden Martin Stabe

12. eretz.cz | zpravodajství&hellip |  15 April 2007 at 12:11pm

    [...] novináři. Na blogu portálu Press Gazette, který se věnuje britské mediální scéně, cituje Martin Stabe některá nesouhlasná vyjádření novinářů. Lloyd Shepherd ironicky očekává „podobné [...]

13. Gerry Rovnick |  15 April 2007 at 2:15pm

    NUJ is saying “Take the money and run”. Do not think about what you are doing, the lies you are spreading and the truth only depends on who is paying. Bur which future do you wnat for your children? One based on democracy, value of life and humans making progress (Israel) or no democracy, no respect for life (especially women and the poor) and no development (Gaza, West Bank, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran).
    Perhaps the journalist think about their own lives. It is easy to write bad things about Israel, USA but try writing critical things about other countries (Gaza, Iran, etc) could land you without a job or a life!

14. Best of the journalism bl&hellip |  15 April 2007 at 9:44pm

    In case you’re not familiar with the case of Josh Wolf [1], he’s the video-blogger and/or anarchist-troublemaker who was found in contempt of court for refusing to turn over his videotape of a demo… NUJ ADM: Should journalists boycott Israel? And can they? Blogging journalists have been reacting to the motion calling for a boycott of Israeli goods that was passed on Friday by the National Union of Journalists annual delegates meeting in Birmingham. T…

15. EU Referendum&hellip |  15 April 2007 at 11:19pm

    [...] on the call for a boycott motion with the eventual far-from-brilliant result.There were immediate words of disgust and disapproval from journalists who feel that they are not exactly represented by the [...]

16. Larry |  16 April 2007 at 1:58am

    You Brits are something else! They kidnap a BBC “journalist” and we hear how much a friend of the Palestinians he was (so much for reporter objectivity) and the response is to boycott Israel. Great, stay out of Israel and maybe the inane reporting on BBC, The Guardian, et al, will cease.

17. LabourStart: Where trade &hellip |  16 April 2007 at 9:33am

    [...] NUJ ADM: Should journalists boycott Israel? And can they? [Press Gazette]  15-Apr-2007 [...]

18. Rosie |  16 April 2007 at 12:12pm

    I was at ADM. Unfortunately, many of the reports of this event and bloggers have ignored the following things:

    1. That the vote was only narrowly passed
    2. That many of the delegates abstained
    3. That the majority of motions passed and debated were of direct relevance to the working lives of journalists, such as its code of practice.
    4. That other so-called “trendy lefty” motions at the conference failed because many delegates didn’t feel them relevant to their members
    5. That the outcome of this vote sparked a reaction from delegates that may have caused later motions of this kind to fail

    The union is a broad church and this vote has exposed the difference of opinion on its approach to such matters. The more political elements of the union, are very good at campaigning and raising awareness of these issues. The silent majority must learn that their inactivity is what contributes to such motions being passed. I think there will be a lot of soul searching in the union as a result of this motion. Take part in it, don’t hand in your card.

19. Martin Stabe&hellip |  16 April 2007 at 1:28pm

    The ADM voted, 66 to 54, in favour of the boycott, citing Israel’s “aggression” in Palestinian territories and its “savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon” as […] Read more: NUJ, israel Continue Reading 14 April 2007 14:03 Permalink

20. National Union of Journal&hellip |  16 April 2007 at 6:02pm

    [...] the eventual far-from-brilliant result. There were immediate words of disgust and disapproval from journalists who feel that they are not exactly represented by the lefties who are setting the agenda in the NUJ [...]

21. Pete Jenkins |  17 April 2007 at 12:25am

    As someone who was actually at the NUJs’ ADM, and indeed spoke in many debates, I can confirm that I, and many others voted against all of the political motions.

    We are not all using the NUJ to support and push our own private views, and most members that I speak to deplore the loony left image that the union has understandably made for itself.

    But get away from the Political Activists, and the union through its many trade union activists, actually does lobby on Journalists issues. The photographers for instance are very active - look at the NUJ submission to Gowers.

    If you can get away from the political nonsense and it really isn’t as bad is ADM makes it seem, the NUJ is moving towards the 21st Century. We aren’t quite there yet, but there are plenty of us around and we are dragging the rest of the union (including the Trots) screaming and kicking into the current decade.

    The Union is important to Journalists, so please do not paint us all with the Political loony brush – we don’t deserve it.

    Regards

    Pete Jenkins

22. Niall Hunt |  17 April 2007 at 8:43am

    While I am probably going to get slammed for this I want to make my point.

    I agree with most of the above journalist’s views that a ban on Israeli goods is both daft and impracticable. In my opinion this motion is a waste of time and effort for its impossibility of enaction.

    A journalist’s union should focus on issues relating to journalism, but it is a democratic union and therefore has to recognise the opinions off its members.

    My second point relates however to the above rant by Jeanette Friedman. Of course the NUJ isn’t anti-Semitic. What a daft statement to make. It is however opposed to the oppression of any person by a nation state.

    This union stands up for human rights and I wouldn’t be a member if it didn’t. Just because this (somewhat controversial) motion lambasts Israel, it does not mean it is anti-Jewish. In the same way that motions about the occupation of Iraq and the condemnation of the US is not anti-American.

    I back Rosie’s opinion, which is a view I hold. Don’t sit back and lambast the actions of the NUJ, take part. Then it won’t be loony lefty policies that are passed, but your policies – left, right or middle. That’s what democracy is all about.

23. Martin Cloake |  17 April 2007 at 11:54am

    Claiming to have “voted against all the political motions” implies to me that Pete didn’t vote for anything. The industrial issues everyone is quick to laud, and quite rightly, all depend - eventually - on political decisions being made. Campaigning for better trade union rights is political. Calling for inquiries into attacks on and the murder of journalists is political. Campaigning on the treatment of photographers by police is political.

    What people really mean is that motions they don’t agree with are ‘political’, and anyone who disgarees with them is unrepresentative. I’ll give an example. There’s been lots of jumping up and down about the union even putting the question of affiliating to CND to a ballot, and the no vote celebrated as a decisive sign that people don’t want anything to do with ‘things that aren’t to do with journalism’ (I’d like to know what they are, btw). But in recent years the NUJ was one of the prime movers behind the Shot At Dawn campaign, which sought pardons for soldiers shot for cowardice in the first world war. Pretty political that, and eventually a success. But I didn’t hear anyone say we shouldn’t be doing it, and I doubt if anyone would argue now we shouldn’t have participated (although nothing surprises me in this trade!)

    We are all going to disagree sometimes. It’s simply a disagreement, not the end of the world, evidence of a far-left takeover, unrepresentative, undemocratic, or any of the other nonsense that has been expounded on this.

    Still, it’s all more exciting than recognising that the vast majority of the NUJ’s work is solid, bread and butter industrial trade unionism.

24. Press Gazette Blogs - Edi&hellip |  17 April 2007 at 12:23pm

    [...] There is so much that the vast majority of journalists can agree on: the need for fairer wages, especially in the regional press; the defence of press freedom; the improvement of ethical and professional standards; the need to protect good editorial resources in the face of commercial pressure.

    The NUJ should concentrate on these issues, and when it comes to international matters concentrate on protecting journalism and press freedom worldwide, instead of forming positions on highly divisive geo-political conflicts which risk alienating the rank-and-file membership. [...]

25. Kate Simon |  17 April 2007 at 9:36pm

    I was at the NUJ conference and I voted for both the motion supporting Palestine and the vote to boycott Israeli goods.

    We cannot pretend that we live in a vacuum. We are working people who come together as a collective because we understand that there is an imbalance in forces between us and the employer. That doesn’t stop at the office door. The war in Iraq takes money away from the hospitals, schools and services that people like us use and need. Among the many victims, it even directly affects journalists, in that many have been killed, of various nationalities.

    Even though the opinion polls overwhelmingly show that the majority of this country are opposed to the war, Blair continues his adventure in the Gulf against the beliefs of most Labour supporters, let alone other parties. Trade unions are one of the few places where ordinary people can find a democratic forum to discuss our response to what happens at work and in the world and how it affects working people and use our industrial muscle to voice our dissent and try to change things.

    It is dishonest to pretend that a trade union isn’t a political body. It is. And it fights for the oppressed and the weak, and when the question posed is the Israeli state or ordinary Palestinian workers I know what side I’m on. But that doesn’t make me an anti-Semite as the Zionist lobby might like to suggest for their own political ends.

    I have been Mother of Chapel at the Independent for more than seven years, an activist in other chapels and branches for nearly 20. During that time I have tirelessly represented staff on a huge variety of workplace issues and spearheaded fights that have won our members significant benefits. Our membership stands at more than 75% of the workforce these days. I take that as a testament to the work that I and the active members of the chapel have done over the years.

    For the past 17 years I have been a signed-up member of the “far left” and proudly so. More importantly, my chapel are aware of this and every AGM each chapel committee member is asked to declare any political interest, something I introduced.

    Doubtless some of my members would disagree with the position I took at ADM, others would agree with it. What they all know is that I am always encouraging members to get active and to join the chapel and wider union forums. At ADM I was one of the speakers in favour of consolidating the brilliant support shown by the NUJ for Stop The War. Unlike the opposition speakers who sadly won the day, I was not afraid of taking that support outside the walls of ADM. I’m not afraid to vigorously campaign among the membership to affiliate to STW. I think it’s democratic to put these ideas out for debate and discussion and I don’t fear arguing my beliefs about why the union should take a stand on overtly political issues.

    Finally, it’s a bit of a travesty to say that ADM was populated with such motions. Or indeed by the “loony left” because we certainly weren’t there in force! As Rosie, further up, says, “political” motions were few and far between. Though I don’t agree with her pessimistic conclusions about this being a good thing. I hope next ADM will look outwards, with more new activists present, and we will recognise ourselves as the good citizens we are, not just concerned with our own problems but embracing those faced by our fellow workers, across industries, experiencing conflict, across the world.
    Regards
    Kate Simon
    MoC Independents Chapel
    Chair Canary Wharf Branch

26. Nir |  17 April 2007 at 9:55pm

    Niall, while NUJ members probably don’t think Jews poisong Christian wells (only Muslim) or secretly run the world (only America), they did vote a boycott on Israel and not on Iran, Sudan, North Korea or any other nation (including each and every other nation in the Middle East) which has worse human rights situation than Israel.

    Of the long, long line of nations with tarnished human rights record, Israel stands out twice: it’s the only Jewish one, and it’s the only one NUJ bothered to boycott. Coincidence?

27. Danny Bowers |  17 April 2007 at 10:01pm

    I am baffled by how this pathetic decision and wonder what this does for the standing of the NUJ. I could list 100 countries with policies I object to and the likes of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe might well be on the list, but come on how does this nonsense contribute to the credibility and legitimacy of British journalists. Do we want to be taken seriously or not ? (former NUJ member)

28. Niall Hunt |  18 April 2007 at 10:06am

    Nir, I think you’ll find that we don’t need to boycott Iranian or North Korean products because they are banned by UN sanctions – except, hypocritically, Iranian oil.

    The NUJ has also taken a strong line on China, is fighting for freedom of the press in Russia.

    The point I was making that this is NOT racially motivated which you seem to think it is.

    Also, I would like to again point out that IF i’d have been at ADM I would have voted AGAINST this motion.

    You can’t punish the population of a country for the actions of its government.

29. Rosie |  18 April 2007 at 2:10pm

    Erm, Nir. No one voted on motions on the countries you mentioned because none were proposed (although there was something on China and Yahoo!). It’s up to members to propose motions. If we had a motion on every country that violated human rights, we would never get onto workplace issues!

30. Labour And Capital&hellip |  18 April 2007 at 5:15pm

    UK Press Gazette blog which gets into the question of whether unions should be passing these kinds of resolutions, as opposed to the more central work of defending members (of course they don’t preclude each other). I have to say the language used in the resolution does

31. Political Stew :: View to&hellip |  19 April 2007 at 8:41am

    [...] somehow ‘hates Israelis and wants to push them into the sea’. ‘Course they do, dear. Read http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/fleetstreet/2007/04/14/nuj-adm-should-journalists-boycott-israel-and... To see how much support the motion actually has. Idiocy like this gets passed when only (or mostly [...]

32. unseen |  19 April 2007 at 4:51pm

    Last week the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) endorsed a motion to encourage its members to boycott Israeli goods. The margin of victory was small; the significance of the vote was not. Many NUJ members have contacted Engage to help overturn the motion. So we are setting up a list for those NUJ members who would like to become involved.

    Sign up at http://www.mailmylist.co.uk/nuj/

    http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=965

33. Arlene Polonsky |  19 April 2007 at 7:07pm

    The NUJ proposed boycott of Israel is classic appeasement. To repond to the Palestinian abduction of a British journalist in this way is cheap and nasty, and probably ineffective; consider how much anti NUJ sentiment it has already provoked. Good for the Palestinian cause? I don’t think so.

34. Naftali |  19 April 2007 at 10:22pm

    Kate Simon: So, I guess you are not only an ardent unionist but an expert on the Middle East as well. In case you forget, Israel is a tiny state surrounded by repressive, dictatorial regimes, threatened with extinction by Iran. The Palestinians and the Jews were offered a 2 state solution in 1948 which the Arab countries refused. 6 Arab countries decided to go to war in the hope that they could gain by conflcit what they could not by diplomacy. Now they claim to be victims. As for the Palestinians, you cant use terror for decades and expect no response. How come there was no Intifadah or Palestinian fight for nationhood prior to 1967 when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza?

    Aside from the history your Union chose the time of Holocaust Remeberance Day to impose this boycott, which is the first step the Nazis took against the Jews. You chose to call for this boycott when the Palestinians have kidnapped Alan Johnston, and after they had already kidnapped several others. You are also quite aware that any journalist who dares print anything critical of Hamas or Fatah or any other terrorist will face grave danger if not death. So spare us the sermon, we Jews know very well what an anti-semite looks and sounds like, and we recognize it very well here.

35. martin cloake |  19 April 2007 at 10:47pm

    So let’s get this right. People who argue that we shouldn’t be wasting our time arguing over political issues are going to get more involved, not to promote an industrial approach, but to continue the argument over political issues?
    And in order to block what’s been charicatured as ‘far-left influence’, an organisation that features on its board at least two people with the same names as people I remember as prominent members of Socialist Organiser from way back in my student days is setting up a list. Oh goody, it’s back to the good old days of Socialist Organiser versus the SWP.
    You really could not make this up.

36. Ted |  20 April 2007 at 1:24pm

    Far left and far rigth both hate Jews. This motion was nothing short of antisemitism, and was based on fiction not fact.

    It makes me ashamed to be a British journalist. I am so relieved I never joined this bunch of racist clowns.

37. Ian White |  20 April 2007 at 3:42pm

    I suspect that well-known expert on Middle East affairs Mr Mick Gosling knew all along that Israel’s attack on Lebanon” was actually a response to Hizbollah’s rocketing of Israeli military vehicles on Israeli territory and the kidnapping of two IDF soliders. It seems one man’s “savage pre-planned attack” is another country’s right to defend its citizens.

38. Tom Davies |  21 April 2007 at 12:55am

    As Martin C says, this does seem like a bit of a throwback to student politics (and all the tedious wars of ego that went with it). Getting back to the motion at hand (one of around 200 put before conference, most of which went unreported), it’s important to stress that it does NOT tell journalists how to do their jobs, or how to report the conflict, or to boycott Israeli govt spokespeople in the course of their jobs. Just as our many justified attacks on the governments of Zimbabwe, Colombia, China etc do not prescribe how individual members should report on those governments. And nor should they. There’s an awful lot of apocalyptic scaremongering going on here.

    This does, though, tap into a wider debate about what the political role of a trade union, and the trade union movement in general, as part of civil society, should be. We’ve taken ‘political’ positions on racism, ID cards and many other things over the years without it muzzling anyone’s copy. Has the affiliation to Cuba Solidarity stopped our members criticising the government of Cuba? Of course it hasn’t. It is possible to distinguish between what you do professionally and individually, and what you do outwith that, collectively, in your union. And I worry that these attacks on the union being ‘political’ are going to diminish our sphere of influence to almost nothing. Attacking greedy managements who ditch evening newspapers or cut pay rates is also, ultimately, political. ‘Politics’ doesn’t exist in a hermetically sealed box.

    Similarly, other unions such as PCS and Unison are full of people whose jobs as public servants are to carry out policies that their own unions oppose. Should those members therefore object (or abstain) on every union policy against, say, privatisation?

39. Tom Davies |  21 April 2007 at 6:44am

    The “student politics” jibe, by the way, wasn’t aimed at Kate, who’s an excellent workplace MOC.

40. P.J. HARRIS |  21 April 2007 at 9:27am

    I wonder if the NUJ members who voted for this motion would care to leave the country to protest Britain’s action in the Falklands in 1982. I believe that was “pre-planned” and rather “savage” as well.

41. Martin Cloake |  23 April 2007 at 10:40am

    Well, some of us have tried to have a reasoned debate here. But the majority of responses seem either, as Tom says, to be “apocalyptic scaremongering”, or ridiculous and offensive abuse. You may view the NUJ vote to be right or wrong - that doesn’t make people who you may consider wrong “racist” or “anti-semitic”. Accussing people who don’t agree with you of prejudice reveals only a lack of proper argument to back of your views. It’s an old, discredited tactic.
    There are a few people on here who need to make an apology.
    So much for the virtues of the blogosphere - it too often turns into a forum for cheap insults and misrepresentation.
    Still - it’s given a few papers a story.

42. Owen |  23 April 2007 at 11:53am

    If anyone doubts anti-Semitism is a key driver behind the pro-Palestine campaign, consider this:

    1. If Sudan’s government forces happened to be Jewish, the ethnic cleansing of black villagers in Darfur would be on our front pages every day… and there would be demonstrations on the streets.
    2. If Turkey was a Jewish state, UK political activists would be running a high-profile campaign to demand Turkey’s military pulled out of northern Cyprus.
    3. If Robert Mugabe was Jewish… OK, I think I’ve made my point now.

    If anyone asks, I’m not Jewish.

    All this motion will do is make our union look like a bunch of Trotty dinosaurs which would, given the chance, formulate a committee to appoint Erich Honecker’s corpse as successor to Tony Blair as PM.

43. Martin Stabe |  23 April 2007 at 1:00pm

    Owen,

    Your counterfactuals are all very interesting, but of course, being counterfactuals, can’t be proved either way. They are therefore pure rhethotic that do little to further our understanding of this issue.

    I actually agree with you that this decision was a very bad idea, but like Martin Coake, I do wish we could keep the debate here more rational and civil. There’s no need to assume those whose don’t share our position are a bunch of bigots.

44. Martin Cloake |  23 April 2007 at 2:31pm

    Thanks Martin, let’s see if it makes any difference - although holding your breath might not be advisable ;-)
    Thought Peter Wilby was very intersting in The Guardian this morning btw.

45. Maurice Ostroff |  23 April 2007 at 4:11pm

    Is the NUJ vote for boycotting Israeli goods unconstitutional?

    The boycott raises an interesting constitutional issue.

    As Motion number 30, passed at the 2006 ADM reiterated a fundamental commitment to diversity of views and pluralism in the media, one must how the NUJ can have such diversity while it obliges its members to adopt a single-minded outlook declaring enmity to one side and support of the other?

    More blatantly, the boycott is incompatible with motion 30’s stress on the importance of a clear separation of the role of journalists from that of participants in the action or events they are covering. This creates a peculiar situation. Motion 30, unambiguously instructs the National Executive Council (NEC) not to lend support to organizations that do not recognize the importance of distinguishing between the role of reporter and participant. http://tinyurl.com/2jj8yr

    Since the NUJ has now become a participant in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by boycotting one of the parties and actively supporting the other, the NEC is obliged to withhold support from the organization of which it is a constituent.

46. martin cloake |  23 April 2007 at 10:47pm

    Maurice, read Tom Davies’s post again.

47. david |  30 April 2007 at 3:20am

    Mixed feelings.
    On one hand it clarifies positions, since this boycott IMO clearly reveals that british journalists in majority are one-sided, meaning that they are more on the side of the palestinians than the israelis.This is clarifying in the sense that it explains for a large part the tone of the almost daily reports we get on the conflict.
    Off course every journalist should be neutral and detached, but off course journalists are just humans and therefore sympathise (in general) more with one side or the other.
    So getting out the sympathies in the open is not a bad thing. But….
    Although neutrality does not exist, i do think it is what journalists should strive for. Therefore, formalizing which side to chose in a highly debated conflict does not seem like a good road in order to achieve neutrality.

    Finally, being anti-israel can have many reasons, one of them being anti-semitic. If one encounters (what he thinks to be) rabiate and unbalanced anti-israelism, it can be quite rational to suspect that anti-semitism is behind this viewpoint.

48. Tom Davies |  1 May 2007 at 10:57pm

    Yes, but until you can provide actual evidence either that contributors to this discussion, or delegates at the conference, are or were motivated by anti-semitism then you’re just speculating wildly and slinging mud around. Which, unfortunately, appears to have been the defining characteristic of most discussions of this issue that I’ve come across on the web.

    So it can almost be quite rational for those accused of anti-semitism, without any evidence of it being provided, to take offence and request an apology. Any chance of one being forthcoming?

49. David |  24 May 2007 at 11:14pm

    Not much has changed in the last year

50. johninnit » Blog Ar&hellip |  26 June 2007 at 10:41am

    [...] do sometimes often disagree with policies that have gone through my union. I argue with them at branch, vote against them when I get the [...]

Leave a Comment