The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) is calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, which the Israeli labour movement opposes. It bases this BDS decision on its own June 2008 report called simply 'Israel and Palestine'.

Unusually for a boycott-inclined organisation, the delegation researching Israel and Palestine set out to talk to diverse Israelis as well as Palestinians - the bulk of the report comprises 'narrative', and it is compelling stuff. UCU also has policy to circulate Palestinian "testimonies". Testimonies are important because they show the impact of events and circumstances on the individuals who experience them. However they shouldn't be used, as the ICTU uses them here, as a substitute for expert analysis.

The report gives the distinct impression that the delegation arrived with its mind firmly made up. Not all of the Israelis they talked to stood up to the boycott call very well. Israeli Minister of Welfare Herzog, for example, was a mixed bag. Statements about Israel being the fulfilment of a biblical prophesy are weightless, drive wedges, evoke fears of Israeli expansionism and invite a counter claims relating to Islamic Waqf. Some of his other points, most importantly those about shared responsibility for the conflict, were valid but seem not to have impressed the delegation. Indeed, the Intifada in the policy of Israel towards the Palestinians, so deeply resented by the ICTU, receives stunningly superficial treatment. The Palestinians mention it only as something which wrecked their economy because of the way Israel responded, and the Palestinian role in the Intifada is ghosted out of the report. Peace in Ireland would never have come about if it had relied on this kind of reporting.

Eamonn McDonagh has a good Z-Word blog piece on the report. He also notes bias in the treatment of Israeli contributors compared to Palestinians:

"...while the accuracy of the statements made to the delegation by Israelis are always subject to criticism and analysis - however primitive in nature - the statements made to it by Palestinians are received as revealed truth. Indeed, encomiums are frequently offered to the heroic character of those making them."

. Eamonn McDonagh picks out a couple of examples in his piece - here is another. The ICTU reports a meeting with Histadrut, whose Chair Ofer Eini puts the case for solidarity with the Israeli labour movement:

Mr Eini stated that Israeli trade unions, employers and government were optimistic about the prospects of establishing an Irish model of social partnership. Mr Eini commented on the good relationship between Histadrut and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, (PGFTU), whose General Secretary is Sharer Sa’ed.

On the issue of a boycott, Mr Eini said such methods contradicted the principles of trade unionism by harming workers, irrespective of location. He maintained that the PGFTU opposed not only the ICTU resolutions but also resolutions passed by trade unions in Great Britain. Mr Eini truly hoped that at the next Congress Biennial Delegate Conference (2009), the resolutions would be rescinded. He urged the ICTU to call for dialogue between Histadrut and the PGFTU and stated that pursuing a boycott would damage inter-federation relationships. He further hoped that our engagement with Histadrut would strengthen our relationship and that we would learn from each other.

But the delegation rejects the appeal of the Israeli trade unions because... of Israeli bias against boycott!

"It was quite obvious that both the Histadrut and Federation of Economic Organisations were strongly opposed to any boycott. It was also quite evident that these organisations supported the policy of the Israeli government on security issues."

Right as it is to insist that every measure be taken to minimise human misery, looking at the delegate list in the report there doesn't appear to have been anybody with sufficient expertise to challenge the Israeli government on its security policies in detail. Detail has always been important in this conflict. As Tony Blair has observed (Today Programme, 14th May, 07:51)

"Getting the deal is about the detail. Because actually for ordinary people on the Palestinian side, the occupation is in the detail ... and if you don’t get down to the detail you don’t get it done."

Nevertheless, from a position of comfortable ignorance the ICTU draws its own conclusions.

Next the delegation visited Yad Vashem. However, this does not seem to have prompted any contemplation of Jewish history in relation to Zionism and Israel. What they do emphasise, though, was that Yad Vashem reminded some of them of Gaza.

At the end of his piece Eamonn McDonagh picks out what is presumably an error (at least of judgement), but a revealing one:

"To finish, I want to quote the first sentence of the report’s conclusions.

It is obvious that all the land of historic Palestine is under Israeli Occupation, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

As examples of awkward phrasing abound in the report, I suppose it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that this is just another. However, it would appear that the official representatives of Irish trade unionism, for all their prattling about human rights and UN resolutions, are not so much against the Israeli occupation of land that ought to form part of a Palestinian state as they are against the very existence of Israel itself."