Controversial AFT Resolutions Reflect Union Democracy, not Antisemitism

Critics are accusing the American Federation of Teachers of antisemitism over several resolutions that will be voted on at the AFT conference in Houston next week. This reflects a troubling trend in teachers unions–labeling resolutions critical of Israeli policies “antisemitic”.

In reality, the AFT resolutions mirror views of the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza that are held by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, as well as numerous human rights groups, Middle East experts, and historians, including many in Israel. 

This doesn't mean the AFT resolutions are correct, but it does mean that they're not unreasonable. It also means it is grossly unfair to label them antisemitic. 

For example, in a New York Post column detailing allegations of antisemitism, veteran journalist Carl Campanile criticizes an “eyebrow-raising proposal [that] even goes so far as suggesting the US is ‘enabling genocide’ in Gaza.” 

Yet earlier this year the ICJ found it "plausible" that Israel has committed acts that violate the Genocide Convention. It issued what Human Rights Watch calls a “binding order requir[ing] Israel to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza…with immediate effect”, an order Israel rejected. HRW and Amnesty International condemned Israel for its failure to comply with the order.

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese explained, “There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide…has been met.”

Many other experts agree. For example, reports issued by both the University Network for Human Rights and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor label Israel's actions a genocide. 

Israeli historian Amos Goldberg of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem recently published an article in Israel called “Yes, It Is a Genocide” in which he states, “I acknowledge that this is a serious allegation, and I don’t take it lightly.” He explains:

“[T]ens of thousands of innocent children, women, and men killed or injured, the almost-total destruction of infrastructure, intentional starvation and the blocking of humanitarian aid, mass graves of which we still don’t know the full extent, mass displacement, etc. There is also reliable testimony of summary executions, not to mention the numerous bombings of civilians in so-called ‘safe zones.’ Gaza as we knew it does not exist anymore.”

Yet for a coalition of Jewish education groups, calling Israel’s actions “genocide” is reviving “ancient blood-libel accusations against Jews worldwide.”

Michael Starr, the Diaspora Affairs correspondent for The Jerusalem Post, explains that several Jewish groups are unhappy with an AFT resolution that refers to Israeli “apartheid.” Yet the Israeli human rights groups B'tselem and Yesh Din, as well as HRW, Amnesty International, and others, have all accused Israel of apartheid. 

Zwelivelile Mandela, grandson of South Africa's former president Nelson Mandela, says, "The Palestinians are experiencing a worse form of the apartheid regime, worse than that we have ever experienced as South Africans."

Tova Plaut, founder of the New York City Public School Alliance, says the AFT resolutions “equate” Zionism with “colonialism”, which she calls “a dangerous narrative that fuels discrimination and hatred against Jews.” However, as British-Palestinian author Isabella Hammad and Palestinian historian Sahar Huneidi recently noted, for decades Zionists themselves used the word “colonization” to refer to their attempts to create a Jewish state in Palestine. They explain:

“Until the 1960s and the first wave of successful anti-colonial independence movements, Zionists were not ashamed to call their project colonialism. Established with the aim of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine, their institutions from 1897 onward included the Jewish Colonization Association, the Society for the Colonization of the Land of Israel, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, and the Jewish Colonial Trust.”

The King–Crane Commission, an American-led inquiry regarding the post-World War I disposition of former Ottoman Empire territories, found in 1919 that Jews were no more than 10% of the total population of Palestine, as contrasted with a Muslim population of 80%. The Commission saw creating a Jewish state as a colonial effort that would mean “complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.”

The AFT is also being criticized for its proposed resolution that the “American military cannot be used in ways that facilitate the seizure of Palestinian land, the violent dispossession of Palestinian communities and the annexation of occupied Palestinian territory.” 

Again, agree or not, there’s widespread international support for the viewpoint expressed in this resolution. Under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 446, which was passed in 1979 and reaffirmed in 2016, “the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity.”

Like the UN, most of the world sees Gaza and the West Bank as “occupied territory.” In 2016, President Obama told the UN “Israel must recognise that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land." 

A 2023 UN study found a sharp increase in Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and that almost 30,000 new housing units had been proposed in Palestinian territory within the first six months of that year.

Coverage of campus protests over the war in Gaza has often been very unfair to the pro-Palestinian demonstrators, portraying them as violent or extremists or antisemites.

The AFT is being criticized for a resolution calling on college campus administrators to “cease their campaign of threats, suspensions and expulsions against peaceful protesters and cease using law enforcement agencies to disrupt and attack them.” But an organization of educators should speak up for academic freedom and free speech. Educators work hard to prepare students for college–we have a moral obligation to defend their rights.

Critics also object to AFT Resolution 30, which blames “far-right” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for “prolonging” the war in Gaza, and declares that there is “no military solution to this conflict.” Yet many Israelis make similar criticisms of Netanyahu, and in June, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagar, spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, expressed deep skepticism on whether the Gaza conflict could be resolved militarily. He states:

“This business of destroying Hamas, making Hamas disappear — it’s simply throwing sand in the eyes of the public. Hamas is an idea, Hamas is a party. It’s rooted in the hearts of the people — anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong.”

One of critics' main objections is that the AFT is “singling out” Israel for criticism. However, the AFT has a long history of passing resolutions condemning human rights violations in a wide range of countries. Over the past 15 years the AFT has passed resolutions condemning China’s persecution of the Muslim Uyghur minority, attacks on striking teachers by Mexican police, and abuses in Haiti, Iran, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, Honduras, Saudi Arabia, India, Hungary, the Philippines and numerous other countries, including the United States and Canada.

Many AFT resolutions have been supportive of Jews and, at times, of Israel. Examples include a 1986 resolution condemning the Soviet Union for its persecution of educators who were teaching Hebrew and/or applying for exit visas to Israel, and a 2002 resolution condemning antisemitism in Europe and North Africa.

Where is the mentality that sees antisemitism everywhere coming from? Israeli journalist and author Gideon Levy explains:

“The mindset in Israel is that the whole world is antisemitic. You hear it more and more: the world is against us, no matter what we do. Which obviously has nothing to do with reality. But that’s the way it’s perceived. The New York Times is antisemitic, CNN is antisemitic, the UK is antisemitic…”

Where this mentality leads in American teachers unions is reflected in a recent post by the Los Angeles-based Educators for Israel, who, writing about a teacher union resolution on Israel, explained that teachers will “argue about whether indigenous rights extend to Jews or whether they should be ethnically cleansed from Israel.” Apparently recognizing the fact that until the 1930s Jews were a small minority of the population of Palestine automatically means you’re in favor of “ethnically cleansing” all Jews from Israel.

In March, UTLA's democratically-elected House of Representatives voted to join labor unions nationwide calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the siege of Gaza in a sign-on letter to President Biden and Congress. A few weeks later, Educators for Israel posted that UTLA "enthusiastically endorses the extermination of #Jews".

Amy Leserman, chairwoman of Educators for Israel, argues that AFT leadership should not have “allowed” the Israel/Gaza resolutions to “move forward.” Yet these resolutions were introduced by AFT members in compliance with democratic AFT rules and procedures. In effect, Leserman demands that union leaders violate the rights of their members. 

Pro-Israel educators are afforded every opportunity to argue against these resolutions. They’re also welcome to sponsor and advocate their own Israel/Gaza resolutions. 

Would a pro-Israel resolution pass? Maybe, maybe not. But if it were to fail, that’s not antisemitism, that’s union democracy.

This is an extended version of a column which originally appeared in RealClearEducation.com (7/23/24).