« Law blog snagged by The Times |
| Blend blogging tools with a regular website »
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.
Press Gazette: NUJ votes to boycott Israeli goods
April 13, 2007 | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I am sure the NUJ is fair and so it must apply the boycott to the Hamas led Palestinian government for arming and encouraging the suicide bombers aimed just at murdering Israeli civilians.
Sudan for the genocide in Darfur?
Iran for threatening world peace with its nuclear program.
What about the US for its war in Iraq?
What about the UK for supporting the US?
Don't buy British.
Rob Artisan |
April 13, 2007 at 19:23
Hi Rob, thanks for the comment. It is a strange move especially when there are plenty of things like staff cutbacks and multi-tasking in the newsroom impacting upon NUJ members.
All the best, Craig
Craig McGinty |
April 14, 2007 at 13:44
Yeah, lets concentrate on our pockets. Sodd the opressed people of the world.
Maybe we shouldn't have stopped the Nazi's as well.
When will people start thinking about other people of the world and not about themselves?
We stopped South Africa from boycotts and now we surely can stop the injustices from Israel.
April 14, 2007 at 16:48
If you think the NUJ is going to change anything buy not buying Jaffa oranges you are wrong.
And before you post another comment do not equate Israel and the Nazis it is poor taste and the comparison is so disproportional that it makes your comments void, but I will reply.
If you are serious in your comments and want less oppression in the middle east I suggest you propose a boycott of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Egypt, which all have dreadful human rights records.
For your information before you jump on the boycott Israel bandwagon consider these facts:
Israel has the most free and independent press in the middle east; writing a critical article about the government will not get you in prison unlike many of its neighbouring countries.
A free judiciary
Free and fair elections
Israel has, and has had, Arabs in its supreme court, government, civil service, South Africa did not.
I could go on but I am sure you will do some research.
Rob Artisan |
April 14, 2007 at 18:39
Thanks for your comment but as Rob and others point out...
...there are injustices the world over.
But if the NUJ has the resources to battle all these injustices as well as help its members, and their pockets, fair enough.
However, while it is struggling to represent its members on a variety of issues, its resources would be better targeted at areas they can influence rather than making such hollow gestures.
All the best
Craig McGinty |
April 14, 2007 at 19:37
You may know this already but your comments about the NUJ stance on Israel has been reported in the online version of The Jerusalem Post !!
How about that then!!
ps - no need to post this mate
Anthony O'Hagan |
April 16, 2007 at 01:57
Good to hear from you and the pointer to the Jerusalem Post article.
To read please see:
All the best, Craig
Craig McGinty |
April 16, 2007 at 11:02
You are right, it is a matter of priorities as well as principles. I object as a matter of policy - I think it is inconsistent and unjustified. But I also despair at an organisation that takes hundreds of pounds off me and then turns around and says it can't afford to sponsor research in to helping journalists while it can afford to do stuff like this or sending not one but three representatives to a very expensive conference in Istanbul. If the NUJ was News International or the Home Office we would all be writing exposes.
Charlie Beckett |
April 17, 2007 at 09:51
I'm glad some readers pointed out the hypocracy of singling out Israel, while ignoring far worse human rights violations by other nations and peoples, including of course, the very "Palestinians" wept over by propagandized Europeans. Given the disproportionate attention the Palestinians are given, perhaps the Darfur genocide victims will finally get relief by calling themselves "Palestinians." Why not ride the coat tails?
Gary Katz, Long Grove, IL USA
Gary Katz |
April 17, 2007 at 15:13
Its interesting that the NUJ chose to boycott Israel right around the time of the Holocaust Memorial Days. The boycott of Jews was the first step the Nazis took. Its also ironic that at the same time this boycott was announced, rumours are spreading that Alan Johnston of the BBC was killed by his Palestinian kidnappers. He is one of many journalists kidnapped by the Palestinians.
April 17, 2007 at 15:29
Thanks for all the comments. As people have written it confuses the issue more than anything and does appear to be a "trendy" move. I also think that the NUJ needs to keep an independent position in areas such as this as ultimately it is its members on the ground who may face problems, not those sat in debating chambers.
All the best, Craig
Craig McGinty |
April 17, 2007 at 17:09
Hypocrisy and retrocession are the summarizer's words for this voting (propagandist or capitalist) of the UK's National Union of Journalists - NUJ!
Only the fact of this idea to be voted already was an irreparable error of the NUJ…
Now yours humanists and democrats members also must apply to boycotting against genocide in Darfur, against the Hamas led Palestinian government and will be arming encouraging the commits suicide bombers aimed just at murdering Israeli civilians, against Islamic militias of Iraq that are killing Christian, against Iranian
nuclear program, against the Saudi Arabia and all countries that disallow the religious freedom, against the Russia that is supplying world's terrorists groups with
If they boycotts related and many other don't apply to, the brave members of NUJ will show yours nakedness...
Frank Herles Matos |
April 17, 2007 at 18:02
At last, the NUJ has supplied the proof we have both long suspected and asked for, that is a vast number of its members are and I hate to say this, anti-semites. No other credible explanation is possible after years of reading, listening and viewing such abject anti-Israel and by definition. anti-semitic, propaganda.
NUJ members consistently ignore the facts on the ground & substitute distortions as fact - suicide bombers in Israel=Israel’s fault, Gaza vacated by Israel back in 2005 & still the rockets rein down daily on Israeli towns=Israel’s fault, the Arabs of the West Bsank & Gaza don’t want peace or recognise Israel's right to exist as much as theirs=Israel’s fault. So what about all the killings around the world by muslim extreemists, in Indonesia,in Phillipines, in India, in Algeria, Morroco, Sudan etc? Give these journalists a free-rein and they will put 2+2 together and come up with Israel as the cause & guilty party. Instead of giving vent to their hate & phobia about Israel, the only parliamentary democracy in the region (where Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahias etc all have a free vote, free press etc), isn’t it about time they looked at the real horrors & tragedies in the world? But of course, that is not the agenda.
Manolo - Manchester |
April 17, 2007 at 19:39
NUJ motions and resolutions for 2006 and 2007 can be seen here. Israel is the only country singled out for boycott and receives a disproportionate criticism.
There is not any doubt in my mind that after reading through 2006 and 2007, a pro Muslim, Leftist Chavez camp rules. Impartiality anyone ?
April 18, 2007 at 08:16
I was on the verge of renewing my lapsed NUJ membership then this happened. So I doubt I'll be bothering. I totally agree with the vast majority of comments made here. And as a Jew, why give my hard-earned dosh to a union that would rather single out Israel than find better ways to support its own members?
April 19, 2007 at 05:32
I was at the ADM, and I can tell you that a range of similar motions were passed relating to Russia, Zimbabwe, China and at a Latin America fringe meeting, members denounced the detention of journos in Cuba. Israel is hardly being singled out here. This is the first ADM after the war on Lebanon last year. It seems an entirely appropriate time to be passing such a resolution.
Furthermore, the union supported the boycott of South Africa in the 80's. If it did so back then, is it not rational to support a boycott Israel as well, given its atrocious record in the occupied territories and the Lebanon?
The vast bulk of resolutions passed related to pay and conditions. This is hardly the focus of the union.
In any case, if one opposes a government's policies, isn't non-violent action such as a boycott a rather good, even tame, way to show one's disapproval? If we oppose what Israel is doing, isn't it far better to use such non-violent methods, than, say suicide bombing or launching rockets?
Or is it the case that you actually support Israeli actions?
April 19, 2007 at 14:52
I don't support Israeli actions, far from it. I'm Jewish but not a Zionist and I have supported Palestinian causes in the past. But none of the other reports I've seen on forums for journalists have mentioned other countries being included in this motion, and many of those mentioning it were at the ADM.
I do agree with Craig and others that the NUJ should be supporting its members first and foremost, which they seem singularly unable to do these days. Charity, as the saying goes, begins at home...
April 19, 2007 at 16:41
You misunderstand me. There weren't other countries in this motion, but there were other motions relating to other countries.
The fact that the other countries haven't been mentioned by other forums suggests to me that far from the NUJ singling out Israel, it is supporters of Israel that are doing so (although, in fairness, you say you are not one). "Why are you singling out Israel?!" "Uh, we're not - there's Zimbabwe, China -" "La la la. I can't hear you! Why are you singling out Israel?!"
I do wonder where you get the idea that the NUJ seems 'singularly unable to help its members these days'. As I said, the vast bulk of motions related to pay and conditions, and its defence of its members - over low-pay, problems associated with convergence issues and redundancies in particular - is very strong. As a young journo, I am particularly encouraged by how the union is tackling low pay. I happen to be paid better than most, but most of my friends working at regional papers in the UK receive abysmal pay packets, and I am very happy with how the union is going after the fat-cat owners. I honestly don't know where you get the idea that the union focuses on foreign policy questions.
Finally, you have left aside the question of support for a boycott of South Africa in the 80s. Should the union have done so or not?
April 19, 2007 at 17:31
Some points in relation to the ridiculous comments above. I realise the last post was a month ago but perhaps someone will read it!
1. There were 150 motions or so at the three-day ADM. The vast majority were about pay, terms, conditions and platform convergence. One motion, lasting five minutes, was on Israel. How can anyone say the union is 'concentrating on Israel' and neglecting its campaigns on journalists' pay?
2. The first post says why did the NUJ not debate Iran, the UK, etc. Because you as a member did not submit a motion! If you want something to be discussed by members at next year's conference, go to your branch meeting, submit a motion and get it to sponsor it, and it will be discussed and voted on at conference. That's called democracy.
3. Re the post which accuses the NUJ of frittering money away and not sponsoring research. I am aware of two major studies in the past months commissioned by the union - the scandal of budding journalists being exploited on 'work experience' for months on end with no pay. And a report from Cardiff University into the convergence of online and print. Also, most NUJ officials work for free and those who are paid are hardly high on the hog - I think Jeremy Dear the general secretary earns around 50k a year.
4. A poster says Israel has the most free and independent press in the middle east. But this week it went into Palestinian territories and closed down four independent radio stations (according to Roy Greenslade's blog). Hmm.
5. I find some of the virulently racist comments about Muslims around the world deeply offensive.
6. Re the post saying that UK journalists are all closet anti-Semites. My girlfriend is Jewish (but decidedly non-Zionist). She wouldn't allow any Israeli goods in the house. Is she anti-Semitic too?
May 30, 2007 at 21:52
Today is the day of Nakba" when palidtine was stolen" I'm half palestinian. today is when thousands of Arabs got murdered. Today is when hundreds of thousannds left their homes and land in fear of being killed and raped.
today is when our land was stolen, today i start my boycott to anythingmade in israel, or from any company that supports israel.
60 years still no justice...
thank you NUJ
May 15, 2008 at 08:40
The comments to this entry are closed.
Delivered by FeedBurner