<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1543" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The error on the spelling of Ethiopia was my mistake.  I added the descriptor to her letter for clarity less someone think she is the child of the English colonial office.  What do I know I am still convinced Blair has an E on the end.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>tfast  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What follows below is a letter of concern that a member of our  local (cupe 3903) wrote in</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>response to the cupe resolution.  It should be mentioned that it was members of our local</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>which crafted and motivated the motion.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>tfast.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>--------------------------------</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>I have had reason to feel proud of many of the past CUPE motions with regards Israeli state policy. However,<BR>while I support a strategic boycott of some Israeli institutions as well as<BR>those who invest in Israel, I am concerned with the language of resolution<BR>50 passed recently by CUPE Ontario. To be honest, I am conflicted and<BR>confused by the choice of language used in the resolution and I believe that<BR>this is a substantive issue that gives one reason to pause and ask what,<BR>indeed, is the motivation, overt and otherwise, behind the resolution. <BR><BR>My problem with the motion is the way it equivocates Israeli state policy<BR>with the policies stemming from both the British and Dutch colonial<BR>interests in Southern Africa. In my mind, the Israeli state is many things,<BR>but the South African apartheid state it is not. To call one the other is to<BR>misunderstand the effects of European colonial policy in South Africa and it<BR>is to obscure the ways Israeli state policy has come to affect Palestinians.<BR>As Amira points out, it seems that such name calling may allow for a<BR>political stink bomb but it hardly begs one to take a serious political<BR>position towards Israeli policy or the history of the Israeli state.</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>To be sure, current Israeli and Middle Eastern self understanding are part of a<BR>political process whose roots lie very much with British colonial policies<BR>in the Middle-East, yet what is fascinating about the present equivocation<BR>CUPE Ontario makes between Apartheid and Israeli policy is that it uses<BR>language that inadvertently refuses to look at the real, historical and<BR>political processes that have produced the current Israeli and Palestinian<BR>situation.<BR><BR>My own family is, broadly speaking, from the Middle Eastern region, my<BR>Ethopian mother growing up in Jerusalem and my Ethopian father growing up in Cairo. Both were<BR>also caught up in the process of state formation that the region underwent<BR>in the period following the Second World War. Yet, for me, and for anyone<BR>who seriously studies the legacy of the end of the British and French<BR>empire, an area of investigation that remains important is the manner in<BR>which the demise of said empires forced people to articulate and reproduce,<BR>in the guise of nationalism and self-determination, highly racialized and<BR>ethnicized notions of citizenship and belonging--identities that would<BR>inevitably force formerly colonized and dominated peoples to be at<BR>loggerheads with each other. What becomes important here is, how, in carving<BR>out modern nation-states, the British and the French empires were able to<BR>craft political identities that would have a lasting effect for the<BR>generation immediately following the dissolution of these empire.<BR><BR>In my mind we are living the consequences of this in Darfur as much as we<BR>are in Israel, and, I find it equally unhelpful to equivocate Israeli policy<BR>with Southern African colonial policy as I find calling the Darfur situation<BR>a catastrophe of Arab racism. This is not to deny the atrocities facing the<BR>Fur people. My problem is that, in both cases, people find it easier to call<BR>something racist, rather than find out how societies are constituted. This<BR>of course is not to deny that the foundations of some socities are<BR>race--South Africa under colonial rule is one such example. However, it<BR>seems important to emphasize that what lies at the heart of the new states<BR>of the Middle East is a nationalism based on an identity that in many cases<BR>was carved out by the "Native authority" in the colonies, as well as the<BR>denial that these new states were constituted in very deliberate ways that<BR>left certain groups purposefully disenfranchised. But, this is why internal<BR>critiques of the constitution of the complicated topographies of these<BR>societies cannot be emphasized enough.<BR><BR>Clearly, today, nationalists in the region have convinced nearly a whole<BR>generation of young people that their identity formation has neither a<BR>history, nor a political-economy, but rather, is something carved in an<BR>ancient stone--a previous generation, at least had a living memory of<BR>something else. Indeed, the cosmopolitan world that my parents once lived<BR>in, only sixty years ago is probably unimaginable for most people in the<BR>region today. But then, this proves that the current mystification around<BR>identity formation is actually part of the political process in areas<BR>formerly dominated by colonial powers. Thus, in my mind a serious political<BR>discussion around current Israeli policy would entail a constant effort to<BR>excavate this story. I also believe that evading history through political<BR>equivocation is very much part of the problem when it comes to excavating<BR>this story. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess, ultimately, that is why I find the CUPE resolution not<BR>only unhelpful, but also divisive--it repeats and takes for granted<BR>political identities that need to be exploded. Perhaps this is to much<BR>history for a union to take on, but I must say that some key intellectuals<BR>in the Darfur debate have managed to shift the language surrounding that<BR>crises to a less racialized one and thus corrected the kinds of<BR>interventions people were once proposing. Perhaps this can be true of Israel<BR>as well, even if the regime there likes to pretend they are in Europe and<BR>not right next to the Sinai. Lastly, given that in my mind the CUPE Ontario<BR>resolution uses language that reduces history to good guys and bad guys, how<BR>can I not feel that this inevitably feeds into historical prejudice, whether<BR>or not people intended it to do so? This, too, is unhelpful.<BR><BR>Sincerely<BR>Elleni Centime Zeleke</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <P> <HR> <P></P>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>