On my 70th birthday, I received a gift from Yitzhak Rabin: he signed the document recognizing the existence of the Palestinian people, after many decades of denial. He also recognized the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as its representative. I had demanded this, almost alone, for many years.
Three days later, the Oslo agreement was signed on the White House lawn.
This week I received another gift of similar magnitude, obviously in anticipation of my 90th birthday, which is due in less than two months.
No less an institution than the European Union has declared what practically amounts to a total boycott of the settlements, 15 years after Gush Shalom, the peace organization to which I belong, had issued a call for such a boycott.
The meaning and merits of the boycott
The European decision says that no Israeli institution or corporation which has any direct or indirect connection with Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights will receive any contract, grant, prize or suchlike from the EU or any member state. To assure compliance, every contract between Israelis and the EU will contain a paragraph stating that the settlements are not part of Israel.
A friend of mine sent me a message consisting of one word: mabrouk(congratulations, in Arabic).
Many enterprises in the settlements did not go there for ideological reasons… but because the Israeli government gave them (stolen) land for free, as well as all kinds of grants, exemption from taxes and other incentives.
If all this sounds a bit megalomaniac, please make allowances. I am just happy.
When we decided to organize our boycott in 1998, we had several interconnected aims in mind.
A boycott is an eminently democratic instrument, a form of non-violent resistance.
Every single individual can decide for himself or herself whether to join the boycott or not…
Many enterprises in the settlements did not go there for ideological reasons – capitalists are not generally known for their ideological fervour – but because the Israeli government gave them (stolen) land for free, as well as all kinds of grants, exemption from taxes and other incentives. It made economic sense for a corporation to sell their very high-priced site in Tel Aviv and get free land in Ariel. A boycott may counterbalance these gains.
Contrary to getting out into the streets and joining a demonstration, not buying something in the supermarket is a private affair. In a demonstration, one may get tear-gassed, water-cannoned or clubbed. One exposes oneself and may be put on a list somewhere or even dismissed from a government job.
Everybody can boycott. One doesn’t need to join an organization, sign a petition, identify oneself. Yet one has the satisfaction of doing something useful, in accordance with one’s convictions.
But our main purpose was conceptual. For decades, successive Israeli governments have striven to eradicate the Green Line from the map and the minds of the people. The main aim of the boycott was to reinstitute the real borders of Israel in the public mind.
We distributed many thousands of copies of the list of settlement enterprises, all on request.
The Israeli government paid us the unique compliment of enacting a special law that penalizes all calls for a boycott of the settlers’ products. Every person who feels harmed by such a call can demand unlimited compensation, without having to prove any actual damage. This could amount to millions of dollars.
We asked the Supreme Court to strike down this law, but the court has been dragging its feet for several years already, obviously afraid of passing judgment.
Yet while we were doing this, the European Union did the opposite. It practically helped to finance the settlements – the very settlements it declared illegal.
Actually, the new measures are not new at all. The agreement between the EU and Israel exempts Israeli products from European customs, as if Israel were a European country. Israel is already a participant in the European football league, the Eurovision Song Contest and other events and organizations. Israeli universities receive huge research grants from Europe and take part in European scientific projects.
All these agreements are in principle restricted to Israel proper and do not apply to the settlements. Yet for decades, the Brussels super-government had consciously closed both its eyes.
I know, because I myself travelled to Brussels years ago to protest against this practice, explaining to commissioners, officials and parliamentarians that they are in practice encouraging the settlements and inducing companies to relocate there. I was given to understand that they sympathize with our stand but are powerless, because several European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, block all attempts in the EU to act against apparent Israeli interests.
It seems that this obstacle has now been overcome. So I am happy.
Zionists of the left and right united
In Israel, the government received the news with consternation. Just a few days earlier, they could not have dreamed that this was possible.
In Israel, the European Union is an object of ridicule. Secure in the knowledge that we have absolute control of US policy, we could treat the EU with contempt, though it is our major trading partner. A large share of Israeli exports, including military equipment, goes there.
Government leaders are now sputtering with rage. Not one single politician has dared to speak in favour of the European decision. Right and left are united in condemning it. Binyamin Netanyahu declared that only Israel would decide where its borders were, and this only in direct negotiations. Never mind that he has obstructed significant direct negotiations for years.
Not one single [Israeli] politician has dared to speak in favour of the European decision. Right and left are united in condemning it.
Naftali Bennett, the minister of economy, who also happens to be the chief representative of the settlers, rejected the decision out of hand. Only a few days before, this political genius (and self-declared “brother” of Ya’ir Lapid) had announced that there was absolutely no pressure on Israel.
Lapid himself voiced his opinion that the European step was a “miserable decision”.
Bennett now proposes to punish Europe by stopping all EU humanitarian projects in the West Bank. (Recalling the joke about the Polish nobleman whose Jew had been beaten up by another nobleman and who threatened: “If you don’t stop beating my Jew, I shall beat your Jew!”)
But the most telling argument marshalled by Israeli leaders was that the European decision was undermining the valiant efforts of John Kerry to start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
This is the height of chutzpah. For months now, Netanyahu and his government have been doing everything possible to prevent the hapless Kerry from achieving his goal. Now they use his fruitless efforts as a fig leaf for the settlements.
The Labour Party’s Shelly Yachimovich, the official “leader of the opposition”, contented herself with repeating the call for negotiations. No hint of criticizing the settlers, for whom she has publicly declared her sympathy.
As usual in such situations, Israeli public opinion started a search for those to blame. But there is no one around.
Israel has no foreign minister, only a deputy, who happens to be one of the most extreme right-wingers in the Knesset. The last minister, Avigdor Lieberman, is facing trial for corruption, and the job is being kept open for him. Netanyahu obviously believes that no judge would dare to convict the fearsome Lieberman, after the attorney-general has already shrunk back from indicting him on the most severe charges.
With no minister (officially, the prime minister is filling the vacuum) and a demoralized foreign service, there could be no prior warning…
A devastating blow against thieves
The term “boycott” was coined in 1888 in a situation not dissimilar from ours now. It was about foreign domination, land and settlers.
The EU boycott of the settlements and their supporters will have a major economic impact. No one knows yet how much. But the moral effect is even more significant.
In Ireland, then under British occupation, there was a famine. Charles Boycott, the agent of an absentee English landlord, evicted local tenants who were unable to pay the rent. An Irish nationalist leader called on his countrymen not to attack Boycott physically, but to shun him. All his neighbors stopped all dealings with him, working for him or speaking with him. Boycott became the word for ostracizing.
The EU boycott of the settlements and their supporters will have a major economic impact. No one knows yet how much. But the moral effect is even more significant.
Even if massive Israeli-American pressure thwarts or at least postpones the European action, the moral blow is already devastating.
It tells us: The settlements are illegal. They are immoral. They inflict a huge injustice on the Palestinian people. They prevent peace. They endanger the very future of Israel.
Military helicopters display national flags as they fly over anti-Morsi demonstrators gathered at Tahrir Square in Cairo, July 7, 2013. (Photo: Yusuf Sayman / The New York Times)Egypt is one of the most important countries in the world, geopolitically speaking. With a history spanning some 7,000 years, it is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, sitting at the point at which Africa meets the Middle East, across the Mediterranean from Europe. Once home to its own empire, it became a prized possession in the imperial designs of other civilizations, including the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Byzantine to the Islamic and Ottoman Empires, and subsequently the French, British and Americans. For any and every empire that has sought to exert control over the Middle East, Asia or Africa, control over Egypt has been a pre-requisite. Its strategic location has only become more important with each subsequent empire.
For the British to control India - their prized imperial possession - dominance over Egypt was a necessity. With the construction of the Suez Canal, Europe became increasingly dependent upon Egypt as a transport route for trade, energy and warfare, making Europe's domination of the world increasingly dependent upon their domination of Egypt, particularly for the French and British. For the modern American Empire, which designates all of planet Earth as being under its hegemony, Egypt remains one of the most important countries over which to exert influence: with its strategic location to some of the world's most prized energy resources, to the maintenance of the Canal route for the benefit of transport and trade - not least of all for America's European allies - and due to Egypt's ability to exert influence across Africa, the Middle East, the Arab/Muslim world as a whole, and indeed, across the so-called 'Third World' as a whole.
In the past two and half years, Egypt has been experiencing an unprecedented revolutionary struggle. Egypt's Revolution represents a popular uprising against a domestic dictatorship, the denial of liberties and freedoms, the repression of workers and dissidents, against a global socio-political and economic system (which we commonly refer to as 'neoliberalism'), and against the American Empire and its many institutional manifestations. Any revolution within Egypt is inevitably a revolution against the American Empire. An uprising - not only against a long-time dictator and his authoritarian imitators who followed - but against the most powerful empire the world has ever known is a powerful symbol to the rest of the world, most of which has known the terror of living under domestic tyranny, and the reality of living under America's global hegemony.
A good example can go a long way.
This series examines some of Egypt's recent history as it relates to Empire, and as it has built up to Egypt's unfinished Revolution.
Egypt and the State-Capitalist Imperial Order
The development of the Egyptian working class, labour activism and nationalism was intimately tied to the expansion of Western imperial expansion and domination over Egypt and much of the rest of the world. In the early 19th century, Egypt was increasingly an autonomous state under the Ottoman Empire, ruled by Muhammad Ali who initiated a process of state-sponsored industrialization. In 1819, his regime constructed European-style factories for military production, agricultural processing and textiles. By the early 1830s, there were 30 cotton mills on operation, employing roughly 30,000 labourers, who were largely recruited from among the landless peasants.
Egypt's attempt to industrialize followed the examples set by Britain and other European powers - as well as the United States - by imposing protective measures, tariffs on foreign goods and other subsidies for domestic industry in order to allow the country to compete against the heavily protected industries of the European and American economies. Egypt was not the only major country to pursue such a strategy, as India and Paraguay also attempted major state-led industrialization programs. In 1800, Egypt's GNP was around that of France, higher than both Eastern Europe and Japan, and Paraguay also had comparable economic weight. They were attempting to industrialize, wrote Jean Batou, "in order to avoid dependency and underdevelopment."
Resistance to these industrialization projects was strong on the part of Britain and other industrial Western powers, which wanted these countries to be in subservient positions to their own. The Europeans - and especially Britain - pressured these countries to "open up" their economies to "free trade" competition with the heavily-protected industrial goods of the West. The result, of course, was that they could not compete on an even basis, and European industrial goods gained the major advantage, forcing these countries to focus on raw goods for export to the rich nations.
In Egypt, a great deal of resistance was also expressed by the new working class, and in the 1830s, the state-led industrialization programs began to decline. Following the death of Muhammad Ali in 1849, few of his industrial programs remained, "and Egypt was well on its way to full integration into a European-dominated world market as supplier of a single raw material, cotton." If Egypt had succeeded in its industrialization programs, some have suggested, "it might have shared with Japan [or the United States] the distinction of achieving autonomous capitalist development and preserving its independence."
In the latter half of the 19th century, Egypt made an attempt at increasing its industrial potential, though this time relying primarily upon foreign capital from European powers. The most important example of this was with the foreign financing that led to the construction of the Suez Canal in 1869, which "resulted in the development of the export sector of the economy and its necessary infrastructure," and in turn, the development of a permanent working class.
Great Britain was the first major power to undergo an industrial revolution, with other European empires and the United States soon to follow. Countries that underwent industrialization did so with heavy state involvement in the form of subsidies and protective tariffs and trade measures, allowing domestic industries and goods to gain a competitive advantage over those of other nations around the world. The global trading system - as an outgrowth of the development of the modern state-capitalist system - became a central facet in the construction and expansion of empire.
The imperial powers - predominantly in the North Atlantic region, the United States and Western Europe, with the later addition of Japan - had to maintain their own influence over the world by ensuring that the rest of the world did not follow their examples of industrialization, and thus, be able to compete with them for regional and global influence. Thus, industrialization - or 'development' - in the 'core' countries necessarily required de -industrialization - or underdevelopment - in the rest of the world, the global imperial 'periphery.'
The period between 1770 and 1870 marked "the first phase of the underdevelopment process" for many countries and regions in the world. In 1770, "the present Third World probably had a real income and an industrial product per capita comparable to those of the rest of the world." Multiple countries attempted state-led and protected industrialization processes in the early nineteenth century - notably Egypt and Paraguay, though lesser efforts at state-led industrialization were made in what are modern-day Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia and Brazil, with more isolated and less state-involved efforts in Mexico and Colombia. By 1870, however, the gap had widened significantly between the industrial powers (Western Europe, North America and Japan), which exported manufactured goods, and the rest of the world, which largely focused on exporting commodities needed for industry.
The "specialization" of economies in the Global South - the 'Third World' - made them dependent upon the export of raw materials to the rich, powerful countries, and thus, kept them in a subservient position within the global order. This has been referred to as the "Great Divergence" between the powerful countries and the rest of the world, where the powerful countries industrialized themselves and de-industrialized others. In short, the powerful countries became - and remained - powerful by virtue of their ability to undermine and disempower the rest of the world, pushing them away from independence and autonomy into a position of dependence on the 'core' economies.
In 1870, roughly 70% of Egypt's exports were cotton, and by 1910-14, this had risen to 93%. In 1882, the British occupied Egypt, at which point the country was essentially ruled over by Lord Cromer, "a devout believer" in the 'free market' (for every country except Britain). Cromer's rule of Egypt (1883-1907) coincided with many of the "formative" years for the Egyptian working class, as labour became increasingly exploited in sectors dominated by European capital. Out of a total population of 11 million, Egypt had approximately 350,000 male workers in the 1907 census, with 100,000 in transport and 150,000 in commerce. Thus, by the early 20th century, "Egypt had a modern working class concentrated in its two largest cities and ready to make itself heard."
Anarchism and a Radical Working Class in Egypt
Added to the increased domestic formation of a working class, a large presence of foreign workers was brought into Egypt to provide the necessary skills for building the country's infrastructure. Waves of immigrant workers came from Europe, notably Italy and Greece. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, many of these migrant workers brought with them to Egypt the emerging ideologies and philosophies of resistance and revolution which were spreading among the European working classes, notably socialism and anarchism. Italian workers began forming anarchist groups within Egypt, and others soon followed. Egypt's anarchists quickly established close connections with anarchists in Greece and Turkey, and were developing connections with groups in Tunis, Palestine and Lebanon.
From the 1880s onward, anarchist groups within Egypt - still primarily European in membership - were forming educational groups and starting publications around the country. As the domestic Egyptian labour movement grew, so too did the influence of anarchists, notably anarcho-syndicalists. While still largely Italian in makeup, the anarchist community in Egypt became increasingly multi-ethnic, with the increased presence of Greeks, Jews, Germans, and several Eastern European nationalities. Arab Egyptians became increasingly involved in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, specifically within the working class, and notably among the cigarette workers, printers and service employees.
The first major strike in Egypt took place in 1899 among the Cairo cigarette rollers. More strike activity took place in the following years, incorporating both foreign and domestic workers within the country. The primary issues for workers were the long hours, low wages, minimal benefits and oppressive management. Since almost all of Egypt's large employers were foreign, and the country was under foreign (British) occupation since 1882 (to 1922), "the struggle of Egyptian workers for economic gains converged with the nationalist movement seeking to end British rule." Thus, resistance to domestic tyranny within Egypt inevitably required resistance to imperial hegemony over Egypt by outside powers.
Anarchists in Egypt created the Free Popular University (UPL) in Alexandria in 1901, "with the aim of providing free evening education to the popular classes... and drew widespread support from across the full range of Alexandrian society." Classes were given on subjects from the humanities to the sciences, to discussing workers' associations and women in society, with discussions given in a number of different languages, including Italian, French, and Arabic. As anarcho-syndicalists began building ties with the indigenous Egyptian workers, international (or 'mixed') unions were formed between domestic and foreign migrant workers in Egypt, which helped contribute to the 1899 cigarette rollers strike, among other actions.
During World War I, Britain decided that Egypt was now a 'protectorate,' and over the course of the war (1914-18), the British "oversaw a policy of clamping down on all political activities, interning nationalists, surveilling or deporting foreign anarchists and closing down newspapers." In 1919, there was a popular uprising against the British - called the 1919 Revolution - in which nationalists called for the British to leave Egypt and for independence. Workers participated in the form of strikes, demonstrations and clashes with police. Anarcho-syndicalists also played a part in supporting the protests and strikes of the 1919 Revolution.
Ultimately, the British agreed to grant Egypt 'formal' independence by 1922, but in the decade and a half that followed World War I, the major political issues revolved around the negotiation of a treaty with Britain and the establishment of a parliamentary regime. The Wafd party, founded in 1918, would quickly become the "embodiment of the Egyptian national movement," holding a great deal of popular support, winning all of the elections until 1952, but it was largely used as a party through which to co-opt the more radical labour and anti-imperialist elements within Egyptian society. The Wafd encouraged union organization, but only under its umbrella, not independently. When a treaty with Britain was reached in 1936, the Wafd began to lose some of its influence as new political organizations formed, such as the precursor to the Muslim Brotherhood. Labour struggled for more rights, seeking to pass legislation that would, among other things, allow for independent unions. World War II, however, came with the imposition of martial law, but also with increased industrial development within Egypt, and thus, a growing working class.
Between the end of the war and 1952, Egypt "saw the appearance of an active left inside and outside the workers' movement, a new political scene characterized by new mass organizations and issues, and renewed nationalist struggle including guerrilla action against British forces." In 1952, Gamal Abdul Nasser and the 'Free Officers' orchestrated a bloodless coup, abolished the monarchy and the parliament and installed a nationalist military government under the leadership of Nasser. The coup quickly resulted in the repression of the militant labour movement, bringing workers under the control of the government.
The development and evolution of Egypt's working class has been intimately tied to the development and evolution of Egypt's relations with the Western imperial powers and their imposition of a global state-capitalist order. The struggle of workers continued over the following decades, providing a major impetus behind the conditions that led to the start of Egypt's unfinished Revolution in 2011, where the conditions of workers remain tied to the imperial imposition of a state-capitalist order.
In the next part of this series, I examine the relationship between Arab Nationalism - as propagated by Nasser - and the American Empire's efforts to exert its influence over the Middle East and much of the rest of the world.
 Zachary Lockman, "Noted on Egyptian Workers' History," International Labor and Working Class History (No. 18, Fall 1980), pages 1-2;
Joel Benin, "Formation of the Egyptian Working Class," MERIP Reports (No. 94, February 1981), page 14.
 Jean Batou, "Nineteenth-Century Attempted Escapes from the Periphery: The Cases of Egypt and Paraguay," Review - Fernand Braudel Center (Vol. 16, No. 3, Summer 1993), pages 279-280, 291-292, 294-295.
 Zachary Lockman, "Notes on Egyptian Workers' History," International Labor and Working Class History (No. 18, Fall 1980), page 2.
 Joel Benin, "Formation of the Egyptian Working Class," MERIP Reports (No. 94, February 1981), page 15.
 Jean Batou, op cit., pages 282-283.
 Jeffrey G. Williamson, "Globalization and the Great Divergence: terms of trade booms, volatility and the poor periphery, 1782-1913," European Review of Economic History (Vol. 12, 2008), pages 357, 379.
 Joel Benin, op. cit., page 15.
 Zachary Lockman, op. cit., page 2.
 Anthony Gorman, "Diverse in Race, Religion and Nationality... But United in Aspirations of Civil Progress: The Anarchist Movement in Egypt 1860-1940," in Steve Hirsch and Lucien van der Walt (eds), Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1870-1940: The Praxis of National Liberation, Internationalism and Social Revolution (Boston, Brill, 2010), pages 3-6.
Andrew Gavin Marshall is an independent researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada. He is Project Manager of The People's Book Project, head of the Geopolitics Division of the Hampton Institute, Research Director for Occupy.com's Global Power Project and hosts a weekly podcast show at BoilingFrogsPost.
OPROEP: SCHRIJF NAAR TWEEDE KAMER: BESCHERM 70.000 PALESTIJNSE BEDOEINENEind juni heeft de Israëlische Knesset het 'Prawer Plan' goedgekeurd. Het plan is bedoeld om de grootschalige etnische zuivering van de Bedoeïenenbevolking in de Naqab (Negev) te legitimeren. Uitvoering van het plan komt neer op de vernietiging van 35 ‘niet-erkende’ Bedoeïenendorpen, de gedwongen deportatie van totaal 70.000 Bedoeïenen, en de massale onteigening van hun grond. Zij moeten zich gedwongen vestigen in desolate 'townships' die door Israel daartoe zijn aangewezen. Wereldwijd heeft het Prawer Plan tot grote verontwaardiging en protesten geleid die breedgedragen zijn. Uitvoering van het plan zal immers ook neerkomen op ernstige repercussies voor Israël zelf: het land raakt geïsoleerd en kan zware sancties tegemoet zien. Het protest richt zich – na een oproep van de Palestijnse civil society – op parlementariërs wereldwijd. Zij worden opgeroepen om binnen de Interparlementaire Unie (IPU) aan te dringen op acute schorsing van vertegenwoordigers van de Knesset.
NIEUWE EU-RICHTLIJNEN OMTRENT STEUN AAN ISRAËLISCHE INSTELLINGEN EN BEDRIJVEN:EEN STAP IN DE GOEDE RICHTING, MAAR NOG ONVOLDOENDEDeze maand (juli 2013) heeft de Europese Commissie nieuwe richtlijnen uitgevaardigd omtrent het toekennen van giften, prijzen en ander vormen van financiële steun aan Israëlische overheden, ondernemingen en instellingen. Op grond van het officiële EU-standpuntsluiten deze richtlijnen al deze vormen van financiële steun uit aan Israëlische instellingen en bedrijven die in deze bezette gebieden gevestigd zijn of daar hun activiteiten ontplooien. De nieuwe richtlijnen zijn een stap in de goede richting, maar nog niet voldoende wat DocP en de rest van de BDS-beweging betreft. Een consequente en rigoureuze implementatie van de richtlijnen zou er -wat ons betreft- op neerkomen dat alle Israëlische bedrijven en instellingen die in de nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever en in Oost-Jeruzalem opereren en/of niet afstand nemen (in woord en daad) van de schendingen van mensenrechten door Israel, worden uitgesloten van enige EU-steun en samenwerking. Lees hier het gehele artikel
FILMPJE FIETSACTIE TEGEN DADELS Op zaterdag 29 juni hielden 20 activisten van de boycotbeweging tegen Israëlische apartheid een demonstratieve fietstocht naar een aantal winkelbuurten en markten in Amsterdam West. De weken daarna werden flyers in verschillende steden van het land verspreid door activisten. Oproep: boycot Israelische dadels en maak hiermee een statement: draag niet bij aan de bezettingspolitiek van Israel. Kijk hier het filmpje van de actie
Wilt u ook in uw stad een statement maken BOYCOT DADELS UIT ISRAEL? Mail dan naar email@example.com en vraag om actiemateriaal
ONDERTEKEN NU OOK DE PETITIE: APARTHEIDSFRUIT DE WINKEL UIT De actievoerders verzamelden handtekeningen voor een petitie tegen het apartheidsfruit. Jaffa’s en andere ‘Israëlische’ producten komen vaak helemaal niet uit Israël, maar uit de illegale Israëlische nederzettingen die op Palestijns grondgebied gebouwd zijn. Teken de petitie!
Marloes Kuijer docP, Diensten en Onderzoek Centrum Palestina