Friday, January 26, 2024

Israel must prevent genocidal acts in Gaza: U.N. court


Agence France-Presse
January 26, 2024 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) President Joan Donoghue (C) speaks at the ICJ prior to the announcement of an initial ruling in the genocide case against Israel, brought by South Africa, in The Hague on January 26, 2024. 
© Remko de Waal, AFP

The UN top court on Friday said Israel must prevent genocidal acts in Gaza and facilitate "urgently needed" humanitarian aid into the besieged territory, handing down rulings in a case that has drawn global attention.

The court urged Israel to refrain from any possible genocidal acts as it presses its military operation in the Gaza Strip, but stopped short of ordering a ceasefire.

Israel must take "immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians," the court said.

At this stage, the ICJ was not considering whether Israel is actually committing genocide in Gaza -- that process will take several years.

But the court warned Israel to "take all measures in its power to prevent" acts that could fall under the UN Genocide Convention, set up in 1948 as the world reeled from the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust.

It also said Israel should "prevent and punish" any incitement to genocide.

The case was brought by South Africa, which has accused Israel of breaching the UN Genocide Convention.

Over two days of hearings earlier this month in the gilded hall of the Peace Palace, where the ICJ sits, lawyers from both sides battled it over the interpretation of this Convention.

South Africa accused Israel of "genocidal" acts that were intended to cause the "destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group."

It urged the court to order Israel to "immediately suspend" its military operations in Gaza and allow humanitarian aid to reach the civiilians there.


'Grossly distorted'

Israel dismissed the case as a "grossly distorted story" and said that if any genocidal acts had been carried out, they had been executed against Israel during the October 7 Hamas attacks.

"What Israel seeks by operating in Gaza is not to destroy a people, but to protect a people, its people, who are under attack on multiple fronts," said Tal Becker, Israel's top lawyer.

The question now is whether the court's rulings will be obeyed.

Although its rulings are legally binding, it has no mechanism to enforce them and they are sometimes completely ignored -- it has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine for example.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already hinted Israel would not abide by any ruling saying "no one will stop us", not even a verdict in The Hague.

But experts believe that aside from the significant symbolic impact of the ruling, there could be tangible consequences on the ground.

"It makes it much harder for other states to continue to support Israel in the face of a neutral third party finding there is a risk of genocide," said Juliette McIntyre, international law expert from the University of South Australia.

"States may withdraw military or other support for Israel in order to avoid this," she added.

The October 7 Hamas attack resulted in the death of around 1,140 people in Israel, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli figures.

At least 26,083 Palestinians, around 70 percent of them women, young children and adolescents, have been killed in the Gaza Strip in Israeli bombardments and ground offensive since then, according to the Hamas government's health ministry.

ICJ Finds It’s “Plausible” That Israel Is Committing Genocide in Initial Ruling


Advocates said that the ruling is a good first step, but it needed to include a ceasefire order.


By Sharon Zhang , 
January 26, 2024

The International Court of Justice delivers an order on South Africa's genocide case against Israel on January 26, 2024, in The Hague, Netherlands.
MICHEL PORRO / GETTY IMAGES


Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that it is “plausible” that Israel is committing genocide in a highly anticipated initial ruling on Friday, ordering Israel to take steps to avoid going even further in its violence in Gaza but stopping short of calling for a ceasefire.

In its decision, the ICJ ordered Israel to abide by its obligations under Article II of the UN Genocide Convention, especially with regard to four of the five convention’s criteria that define a genocide: killing members of the group, causing bodily or mental harm to the group, inflicting conditions meant to cause harm to the group, and preventing births within the group.

The ruling orders Israel to ensure that its military does not commit actions within the criteria, to take immediate action to enable humanitarian aid within Gaza, and to prevent 

The court also orders Israeli officials to punish those who have been inciting genocide against Palestinians and to prevent similar incitements in the future.

The ruling highlighted several statements in October from Israeli officials, like President Isaac Herzog’s pledge for Israel to “fight until we’ll break their backbone” and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s speech to Israeli troops in which he called Palestinians “human animals.” The court then cites a November press release by the UN Human Rights Council calling attention to “discernibly genocidal and dehumanizing rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials.”


Netanyahu Says Israel’s Goal Is to Wipe Out All Possibility of Palestinian State
This is one of Netanyahu’s clearest statements yet about his goals for Palestine amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT  January 18, 2024


Many Palestinians have been disheartened by the order, as Al Jazeera reports, with many hoping that the ICJ would bring an end to Israel’s relentless bombing, disease and starvation campaign in Gaza; indeed, even as the ICJ was delivering its decision on Friday, Israeli forces were dropping bombs in Khan Yunis in Southern Gaza.

“The ICJ forg[ot] to tell Israel in [its] decision today to cease fire against Palestinians in Gaza. We are under fire and under killing; we are under genocide,” said Palestinian journalist Bisan Owda in a video posted on Instagram from Gaza on Friday, with the sound of sirens clearly in the background.

“There is no justice in the International Court of Justice,” Owda continued. “There is no justice in this world. ICJ is a lie…. We’re continuing this alone, as we started this alone, with our own [cell phones] to tell you the truth, to seek for justice. Now, there’s no truth or justice. I’m just stuck out of my home and can’t get back, and no one can get me back to my home, or to stop killing us day after day, for 112 days.”

South African officials celebrated the decision as a “decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people” in a statement. However, they said that the implication of the ruling is that there must be a ceasefire.

Israeli officials have rejected the ruling, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that the court is denying Israel the opportunity to defend itself — an action that apparently involves depriving Palestinians of nearly all humanitarian aid — and Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir outright mocking the ruling in a post on social media, saying “Hague shmague.”

Advocates for Palestinian rights say that the ruling is a historic step toward holding Israel responsible for its horror on the world stage. But they are discouraged by the lack of a ceasefire order, which they, like the South African officials, say is the only way to guarantee that Israel follows through on the court’s provisional measures, especially considering experts’ concerns that Israel may not abide by them.

Though the court’s decisions are binding, countries like Serbia and Russia have refused to abide by rulings from the ICJ in the past. And, indeed, Israeli officials have already pledged to defy the orders, saying that no one will stop them, not even the Hague.

“Everything [the ICJ] ordered in terms of preventive measures leads to only one conclusion, which is ceasefire,” said Mahmood Mamdani, a Columbia University professor with a specialization in colonialism, in an interview with Democracy Now!. “How do you stop killing people? Ceasefire. How do you ensure that supplies for human life get in? Ceasefire.”

Human rights attorney and Rutgers professor Noura Erakat said that she was “relieved” when the ICJ’s decision came down because, while it didn’t go far enough, it still provided “vindication” in regards to recognition of the suffering that Israel and the global community have forced on Palestinians. “This court was never going to save us,” and rather could have been “a great source of harm,” Erakat said in a video posted on social media.

Erakat added that the court’s decision should serve as a further call to action for advocates. The court “ordered all of the provisional measures requested by South Africa, stopping short of issuing an order for a cessation of military hostilities, which was already a longshot — and in all cases, even had they provided that order, it wouldn’t have been sufficient to do anything. It would still be in our hands to now take this ruling and to agitate globally,” Erakat continued.

Groups that advocate for Palestinian rights said that the ruling was a crucial first step in ensuring that Israel’s massacre is documented on the world stage, and have said that global leaders’ next moves will be crucial in showing whether or not they are willing to shirk a decision from the ICJ in order to assist Israel in its genocide.

“For over 100 days, the Israeli and the U.S. governments have gaslit and smeared the Palestinian people, denying what the entire world was witnessing: a genocide,” said Jewish Voice for Peace political director Beth Miller in a press release. “Now, the highest court in the world has found these claims plausible. President Biden has a choice to make: he can reject the entire system of international law and continue complicity in Israeli genocide, or he can stop arming a genocidal regime and stop attacking the people and movements struggling to build a more just and peaceful future.”


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

SHARON ZHANG is a news writer at Truthout covering politics, climate and labor. Before coming to Truthout, Sharon had written stories for Pacific Standard, The New Republic, and more. She has a master’s degree in environmental studies. She can be found on Twitter: @zhang_sharon.

International Court of Justice Rules That Israel Must Cease Fire

The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel must cease its warmaking in Gaza — cease committing and inciting genocidal acts — and that the case charging Israel with genocide must proceed.

This was a make or break moment for international law, or rather a break or make-a-first-step moment. There is hope for the idea and reality of international law, but this is only a beginning.

The president of the International Court of Justice, who read the ruling, is Judge Joan Donoghue, former top legal advisor under Hillary Clinton at the U.S. State Department during the Obama Administration. She previously was the lawyer for the United States in its unsuccessful defense before the ICJ against charges by Nicaragua of minining its harbor.

The court voted for portions of this decision by 15-2 and 16-1. The “No” votes came from Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda and Ad Hoc Judge Aharon Barak of Israel.

The case presented by South Africa was overwhelming (read it or watch a key part of it), and Israel’s defense paper-thin. And the case just grew more overwhelming during the bizarre delay (yes, courts are slow, but this genocide is swift).

People all over the world built the pressure to move South Africa to act and other nations to add their support. Over 1,500 organizations signed a statement. Individuals signed a petition by CODEPINK, and sent almost 500,000 emails to key governments’ United Nations consulates through World BEYOND War and RootsAction.org. Click those links because more emails are needed now. While several nations have made public statements in support of South Africa’s case, we need them to file papers officially with the International Court of Justice. To reach out to additional national governments, go here.

Governments that have made statement in support of the case against genocide include MalaysiaTurkeyJordanBoliviathe 57 nations of the Organization of Islamic CountriesNicaraguaVenezuelaMaldives, Namibia, and PakistanColombiaBrazil, and Cuba.

Germany has backed Israel’s defense against the charge of genocide, which has been denounced by Namibia, victimn of a German genocide. Prominent Jews have denounced Germany’s shameful action.

Mass demonstrations in the streets of the world have continued in support of peace and justice, and to a far greater extent than major media outlets have reported.

Here’s a discussion of this campaign for justice with Sam Husseini on Talk World Radio.

Prior to today’s ruling from the International Court of Justice, the U.S. government pointedly refused to say whether it would comply with ruling, despite insisting that other nations comply with rulings by the ICJ.

Hamas said that it would cease fire if Israel does, and release all prisoners if Israel does

Germany, to its credit, reportedly said that it would comply.

Arming a genocide is complicity in genocide. While Israel gets most of its weapons from the United State, other weaponry comes from Germany, Italy, the UK, and Canada — at least some of which nations also provide parts to U.S. weaponsmakers that provide weapons to Israel. Italian opposition demanded an end to it. And then the Foreign Minister claimed Italy had stopped shipments on Oct 7. Meanwhile, Canada is coming under pressure to cease shipments and prevarications. In Canada, Members of Parliament are among over 250 people hunger striking for an arms embargo on Israel.

People in the United States can tell Congress to stop arming Israel here or here.

President Joe Biden already faces a lawsuit for aiding and abetting genocide in Gaza. In November 2023, Palestinian human rights organizations, along with Gaza- and U.S.-based Palestinians, filed suit in a U.S. federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Biden Administration for failing to prevent genocide, and for aiding and abetting genocide. The plaintiffs seek an order to end U.S. military and diplomatic support to Israel. A hearing to address the government’s motion to dismiss will be held at 9 a.m. PT / 12 noon ET today, Friday. The hearing will be webstreamed to the public. You are encouraged to tune in and witness the U.S. government’s attempts at avoiding accountability and justify its support for the genocide that is happening in Gaza.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and War Is a Crime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. Read other articles by David.



International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine Welcomes Today’s ICJ Order; Demands its Implementation


The ICGSP encourages governments and global social movements to demand that provisional measures are enforced immediately


In its provisional ruling issued today on the South African Genocide Convention case against Israel, the International Court of Justice (ICJ—also known as the World Court) demanded Israel stop killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure and medical facilities; prevent and punish incitement to genocide by its top officials; and permit the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. The International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine (ICSGP) applauds the Court’s Order as a crucial first step toward forcing Israel and its primary sponsor and strongest political ally—the United States—to end the months-long brutal assault on Gaza, and the decades-long denial to Palestinians of their rights to self-determination and return.

However, the ICSGP also recognizes that Israeli and U.S. government officials have made repeated official declarations in the past week making clear their plan to ignore the ICJ’s legally binding ruling and rejecting the Court’s process as illegitimate, and that the U.S. has been threatening world governments with sanctions and war—a promise it is making good on already by bombing Yemen—for opposing the ongoing genocide. The ICSGP also recognizes that numerous powerful state allies of the U.S. and Israel, including Germany and Canada, have already made clear their intent to back Israel against an ICJ finding of genocide. The dangerous rejection by the United States, Israel and their allies of this process—which was set up through the United Nations precisely to prevent genocide—undermines the legitimacy of that institution and in particular the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. has long used its veto power as a tool to promote war and genocide. The ICSGP calls upon social movements to demand that world governments uphold international law and protect the integrity of the United Nations by ensuring that the ICJ’s provisional measures are immediately enforced, and to hold Israeli war criminals and their powerful U.S. accomplices accountable for genocide.

The ICSGP stands in full solidarity with its Palestinian coalition members, who have emphasized in their own statements today the need for governments and social movements around the world to double down in their efforts to bring the ongoing genocide in Gaza to an end. Dr. Luqa AbuFarah, North America Coordinator for the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC), an ICSGP member organization, states:

“It’s clear we have a moral obligation to take action and end our government’s complicity with Israel’s Gaza genocide. We must have the courage to speak out and take action to advance the struggle for justice. We must end US military funding to Israel which at $3.8 billion USD a year could instead provide more than 450,000 households with public housing for a year or pay for 41,490 elementary school teachers. I also hope that every person outraged with the blatant disregard for Palestinian life will join and escalate our BDS Campaigns and make sure companies know that complicity with Israeli apartheid and genocide is unacceptable. We must take action now more than ever!”

ICSGP, together with numerous legal and human rights organizations including coalition members The PAL Commission on War Crimes and The Global Legal Alliance for Palestine, held press conferences in New York and Chicago following the Court’s Order on the request for the indication of provisional measures this morning, expressing gratitude to South Africa for its steadfast support, and calling on all organizations and countries to support South Africa’s legal actions against the Israeli military campaign.

Lamis Deek, cofounder the PAL Commission on War Crimes and convener of the Global Legal Alliance for Palestine, states:

“This historic decision changes international and domestic approaches—military, legal, and political—to stopping the genocide in Palestine. This verdict profoundly reshapes the geopolitical and legal topography, regardless of whether Israel complies or not. Following the Court’s decision we must issue calls on state parties to the ICJ and the Genocide Convention as regards their compliance obligations, and address our legal colleagues and our communities regarding the next steps we think will be most critical on the heels of this decision.

The brutal Israeli genocide and torture in Gaza, alongside the targeted assassinations, destruction of civilian infrastructure including all of Gaza’s hospitals and universities, blocking of aid, and use of starvation and spread of disease as a war tactic, constitute a grotesque series of the highest war crimes. We commend the Court’s positive decision. The question now is how to deal with the anticipated US-Israeli obstruction of that decision.”

Monisha Rios, president of SOLI PR, an international network of Puerto Ricans focused on growing solidarity with the Puerto Rican struggle for independence and ICSGP member organization, states:

As Puerto Ricans directly involved in the struggle against U.S.-led settler colonial violence, land grabs and the ongoing neoliberal assault, we have a special obligation to stand in firm, unwavering solidarity with our Palestinian cousins. Not only does the Zionist entity’s genocidal regime in Palestine owe its existence as such to U.S. financial and political backing since its inception, Israel has also directly contributed with military technologies, weapons and police training to the violent repression of peoples fighting for self-determination against the U.S. and its puppet regimes around the world, and of Indigenous Peoples and descendants of enslaved African Peoples subject to structural apartheid within the continental United States. Israeli Zionists themselves have recognized the parallels between Palestine and Puerto Rico, for example with the Minister of Heritage—who publicly called for using a nuclear bomb in Gaza—recently calling for a “Puerto Rican” solution to Palestine. The South African Case at the World Court, and the Court’s decision this morning provide Puerto Ricans and colonized peoples around the world a unique opportunity—in recognizing our common struggle and joining together to fight against Zionist fascism, we have tremendous power to both stop the ongoing genocide against Palestinians, and to contribute to our own liberation by shifting the balance of global power away from the U.S. and toward the Global South.

The ICSGP calls upon the over 2,000 organizational signatories to its original letter, and to social movements everywhere, to hold the profiteers and promoters of the Zionist genocide to account through concrete actions of boycott, divestment, and sanctions; to mobilize to demand the immediate enforcement of the ICJ’s Order of Provisional Measures and denounce accomplices to the genocide; and to continue to pressure all state parties to the Genocide Convention to issue Declarations of Intervention in support of the South African case at the ICJ.

Previous ICSGP press statements are available from January 17January 8 and January 3, 2024.

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) seeks to recapture and redevelop the historic anti-war, anti-imperialist, and pro-peace positions of the radical black movement. Read other articles by Black Alliance for Peace, or visit Black Alliance for Peace's website.



Our Lawyers Made Us So Proud at the ICJ


Abahlali baseMjondolo commend the outstanding work by the South African legal team at the International Court of Justice in Hague. Many of us watched with great pride as our brilliant legal team stood in front of the world to protect humanity and end the devastating attacks against the people of Gaza that have led to the loss of more than 23 000 lives, including more than 8 000 children.

We do not see the importance of this case as being restricted to proving to the ICJ that the Israeli state is committing genocide. It is also a statement of conscience to the people of the world, and encouragement to the huge numbers of people around the world who have taken to the streets in solidarity with the people of Gaza.

We welcome the support of progressive governments in Brazil, Bolivia and Colombia for the action taken by the South African government. We also support the very strong statement issued by the government of Namibia condemning the decision by the German government to support the Israeli state at the ICJ.

The western media continues to condone the attacks on civilians in Gaza with its obvious and crude biases towards the oppressors and against the oppressed. They continue to refer to the attacks as a war between Israel and Hamas. This is not a war, it is a cowardly and genocidal attack on civilians by a country with one of the most powerful armies in the world, an army backed by the United States, the most powerful and dangerous state in the world.

Our movement has always been on the side of the oppressed. Until the South African government opened the case against Israel at the ICJ we had never taken a position or issued a statement commending our government in almost twenty years of struggle. We have faced severe repression under the South African government, ranging from illegal and violent evictions to the jailing and assassination of our leaders. However, politics must be guided by principles and when the South African government took the decision to stand up for justice for Palestine we offered our full support for that decision. We will continue to support any further actions motivated by genuine solidarity with the people of Gaza, and with any other oppressed people anywhere in the world.

We have a long and great tradition of radical lawyering in South Africa. Our movement has worked with a number of brilliant and committed radical lawyers since 2005. We were so proud to see this tradition show itself to the world in the struggle to insist that the humanity of every person must be recognised and defended.

The great step that the South African government has taken on the global stage to end genocide must also be undertaken internally to end oppression. They must treat their own people with the same dignity. Brutal evictions, cuts to social spending, corruption and political repression cannot continue to be the order of the day. Singalingisi ihlamvu lona elishanela kude kube kungcolile eduze.

\Abahlali baseMjondolo, or AbM, is a shack-dwellers' movement in South Africa. It campaigns to improve the living conditions of poor people and to democratize society from below. The movement refuses party politics and boycotts elections. It's key demand is that the social value of urban land should take priority over its commercial value and it campaigns for the public expropriation of large privately owned landholdings. Read other articles by Abahlali baseMjondolo, or visit Abahlali baseMjondolo's website.
The Minneapolis Truckers’ Strike Was Led by Left Revolutionaries

AN INTERVIEW WITH BRYAN D. PALMER

When the Great Depression sank workers to new depths, craft unions weren’t up to the task. Then, in 1934, a team of revolutionary leftists in Minneapolis organized a brave and bloody strike that reinvigorated labor and changed the course of American history
.

Police battle with striking truck drivers in Minneapolis, 1934. (National Archives and Records Administration via Wikimedia Commons)

The following is an interview conducted for Organize the Unorganized: The Rise of the CIO, a Jacobin podcast series produced in collaboration with the Center for Work and Democracy.

Subscribe to Jacobin Radio to listen to the series (and don’t forget to rate us five stars so we can reach more people).

INTERVIEW BYBENJAMIN Y. FONG

Bryan Palmer is professor emeritus of history at Trent University. He’s the author of several books, including James P. Cannon and the Origins of the American Revolutionary Left, 1890–1928, James P. Cannon and the Emergence of Trotskyism in the United States, 1928–38, and, most applicable to this project, Revolutionary Teamsters: The Minneapolis Truckers’ Strikes of 1934.

Our interview focused in particular on the 1934 Minneapolis truckers strikes, and how they presaged the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) moment. The left-wing leadership of the strikes was rather small, but it was disciplined and bore a protracted view of building industrial unionism. For Palmer, the Minneapolis strikes are evidence of what dedicated left-wing organizers can do when embedded in trade unions.

In the interview below, Palmer mentions this quote from Saul Alinsky’s biography of John L. Lewis. That biography slips often into hagiography, and in any event is not the authoritative biography of Lewis that Melvyn Dubofsky and Warren van Tine have written. Nevertheless, it correctly highlights the importance of the Minneapolis strikes to the fateful turn in US labor initiated a few years later by Lewis and the CIO:


Lewis watched the unrest and flare-ups of violence through the summer of 1934. He saw the Dunne Brothers in Minneapolis lead a general strike of truck drivers into a virtual civil war. Blood ran in Minneapolis. In San Francisco a general strike spearheaded by Harry Bridges’ Longshoremen’s Union paralyzed the great Western city for four days. Before that year was out, seven hundred thousand workers had struck. Lewis could read the revolutionary handwriting on the walls of American industry.

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

Could you describe the genesis of the 1934 Minneapolis truckers strike?
BRYAN D. PALMER

The Minneapolis trucker strikes of 1934 involved three strikes, which is pretty incredible, in a one-year period: a strike in February, another in May, and a final victorious strike in July and August. Those strikes were led by Trotskyists who were originally Communist but broke away from the Communist Party in 1929. They had been working, a small number of them, probably no more than eight to ten people, in the Minneapolis trucking sector, particularly in the coal yards, since the 1920s.

And they had a very protracted view of trying to build an industrial union within the local of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, or the IBT. They worked diligently over the course of the early years of the Depression, which of course were terrible years for trying to organize workers. Their union, the IBT, was totally opposed to organizing broadly in the trucking sector and among those workers who were affiliated with trucking but loaded produce at markets and things like that. The Teamsters Union hierarchy basically resisted anything of that nature, and the Trotskyists thought that was the way forward.

The amazing thing about these strikes they organized was that they were probably the most successful of the three mass strikes that took place in 1934, the others being the one among longshoremen in San Francisco and the one among auto parts workers in Toledo. The Minneapolis strikes were so successful that they basically broke the back of what had been a nonunion town. Minneapolis had been known in the ’20s as a center of resistance to unionism. And the strikes that were fought there were fought in a disciplined manner against a very recalcitrant and oppositional set of employers, against local police and municipal politicians, against in some ways a Farmer-Labor governor in Minnesota at the time, and, as I said, against their own trade union leadership.The amazing thing about these strikes they organized was that they were probably the most successful of the three mass strikes that took place in 1934.

This small group of dedicated revolutionary Trotskyists took a union that probably had no more than two hundred people in 1932 or ’33, and by the end of 1934 it had over seven thousand members. From 1934 into the later 1930s, they parlayed this into an over-the-road organizing drive among truckers in the Midwest that really precipitated the Teamsters into a very forceful presence in the American labor movement.

It should be remembered that this was done out of the depths of the Great Depression, and before the CIO had achieved its major successes in 1936–37 with the Flint sit-down strike and other major breakthroughs into mass-production unionism. So in some senses, the Minneapolis Teamsters strikes of 1934 were basically a preface to the CIO, if you will, but taking place inside instead of outside of the American Federation of Labor (AFL).

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

Could you describe the origin and role of some of the key leaders in the ’34 Teamsters strike?
BRYAN D. PALMER

The leadership of the Minneapolis Teamsters came out of the Communist Party. Many of them had been active in radical politics and revolutionary politics for years. Some of them were members of the Socialist Party, particularly its ethnic Scandinavian section. And some were members of the IWW, the Industrial Workers of the World, or the Wobblies.

The four, I would say, key figures were three brothers, the Dunne Brothers — Vincent Ray Dunne, Miles Dunne, and Grant Dunne — and a Scandinavian socialist named Carl Skoglund. They had all been, by the late 1920s, very active in the Communist Party. But they left the Communist Party in 1929 when they were expelled for refusing to abide by a party dictate, the Communist Party dictate, against James P. Cannon, who led a very small group of people away from the party because of Trotsky’s critique of the degeneration of the Communist International and how that affected the American party.

Cannon was expelled along with those who were aligned with him. And the Minneapolis Teamsters who were members of the Communist Party, they really didn’t understand or know what the issues were. But they knew enough to know that this was a big deal, signifying a potential break in the party. They thought that if there was going to be a fight around Trotskyism, they should at least be allowed to read the documents and come to their own conclusions.The Trotskyists saw the need to organize all workers who worked in the sector, including those who just unloaded produce in the markets, who heaved coal and who loaded up the trucks, as well as the drivers.

In this, they basically ran up against a party bureaucracy, led by Jay Lovestone, that was trying to silence people. It stopped them from reading documents, stopped them from looking at what was going on in the wider Communist International. When the Communists in Minneapolis, the Dunne brothers, Skoglund, and others said, “Well, we’d like to read the material, and we’d like to find out what this is about,” they too were expelled.

And so they aligned with Cannon and others in an organization, the first Trotskyist organization, called the Communist League of America. And it was as members of the Communist League of America that they devised this protracted strategy of organizing and building a new kind of unionism.

They were revolutionaries who understood that it wasn’t necessarily a revolutionary situation, and that the struggle wasn’t to build a kind of revolutionary entity within the Minneapolis Teamsters; but instead, that the struggle was to build a mobilization that would achieve union recognition and develop mass-production unionism within the AFL, which was dedicated to craft unionism.

In some senses, it’s kind of a contradiction — the notion that Teamsters and workers in the trucking sector were a highly skilled workforce. They weren’t, but they had this notion of the privileged elite workers being the ones who should be organized. This was a centerpiece of the IBT ideology, if you will. The Trotskyists saw the need to organize all workers who worked in the sector, including those who just unloaded produce in the markets, who heaved coal and who loaded up the trucks, as well as the drivers. And this was anathema to the employers in the sector who wanted nothing to do with a union that organized all workers as opposed to just a few who moved the actual trucks.
BENJAMIN Y. FONG

How did the Minneapolis trucking strike lay the groundwork for the expansion of the Teamsters in the later ’30s, and also for the CIO?

BRYAN D. PALMER

The central importance of the Minneapolis strike was that, first of all, it showed that the battle to build a new kind of unionism could be built not only by revolutionaries and leftists within the labor movement, but also within the shell of the old declining AFL craft unionism. So that’s very significant.

And in some ways, it showed that there was a fighting spirit among workers that was developing by 1934. In the depths of the Depression, the workers’ movement had been dealt such blows through mass unemployment and plant closures and shutdowns that the old craft unions were withering on the vine of the social relations of production in America, basically handcuffed by depression and economic collapse.

And so the fact that this was taking place within the old, ossified craft unions showed an element of the leadership in those older unions, led by people like John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers of America, that there was a fighting spirit in the working class that was beginning to emerge out of the doldrums of the Great Depression. There were workers thirsting for a new kind of unionism — the organization of the unorganized, and the organization of mass production workers and the organization of new sectors.There were workers thirsting for a new kind of unionism — the organization of the unorganized, and the organization of mass production workers and the organization of new sectors.

Lewis himself looked at what happened in Minneapolis, and he saw the fact that blood had been spilled in the streets. And not just workers’ blood. What was decisive in the Minneapolis truckers strikes was that the workers fought back. In one of the first and decisive battles in the early strikes, when the employers’ association organized a bunch of special deputies to basically function as strikebreakers and break the picket lines, the workers routed them in the marketplace. And two of those special deputies actually succumbed to injuries and died.

This became the stuff of newsreels. The class battles unfolding in Minneapolis streets were filmed by large theater companies and shown as short features before the main movie was screened. Workers watched this and saw other workers fighting back. And people like Lewis, the progressive elements in the more ossified labor leadership of the AFL, saw this and saw a way forward. It moved these people to see the possibilities of a new kind of unionism.

And these were not radicals. John L. Lewis had been an archreactionary in the 1920s. He had organized gangsters and thuggery against the militants and dissidents within his own union, many of whom were communists. He was a violent anti-communist in the 1920s. But he was pushed by the militancy that was evident in the streets of Minneapolis to see that there was a new possibility, and that the old, ossified union structures in the AFL were in some senses archaic, outmoded, and needed to be pushed aside, and a new kind of unionism formed.

Minneapolis played a decisive role in that. A very early biography of Lewis by Saul Alinsky, a Chicago organizer, has a quote in it that goes something like, “Lewis looked to Minneapolis, he saw the militancy, he saw the blood in the streets, and he knew that the way forward had to be different than the way of the past.” That’s the real significance of the 1934 strike. Minneapolis was a preface to the mass campaigns that would culminate in the organization of the CIO later in the 1930s.
BENJAMIN Y. FONG

What were the most important things that the CIO did to finally realize the dream of industrial unionism?
BRYAN D. PALMER

The CIO broke through the notion that trade unionism was the terrain of the skilled, white, male working class. By the 1930s, there were whole new sectors of capitalist development that relied not on the old nineteenth-century tradesmen, but on mass production work that depended on machine tenders and factory operatives.The CIO broke through the notion that trade unionism was the terrain of the skilled, white, male working class.

Many of these people, the bulk of them I think, were immigrant workers with ethnic backgrounds, women, or African Americans. What the CIO did in organizing the mass-production sector — industries like steel, electrical, rubber, the industries of the second industrial revolution that were central to the auto sector and other areas — what it did was to organize people who had been, really for a century, outside of the trade union movement. And thus it expanded tremendously, not just the quantity of people who could be affiliated with trade unions, but it also changed qualitatively the nature of trade unionism by making it far more inclusive, by making it far more representative of not only new sectors of industry, but of the American population as a whole.
BENJAMIN Y. FONG

How would you describe the relationship between the “top-down” and “bottom-up” elements in the CIO?
BRYAN D. PALMER

I think new steps forward for the trade union movement are always animated by developments from the mass base of workers who are looking for new possibilities, new avenues of mobilization, new kinds of organizing, alongside of a leadership that can be radical, and can even have revolutionary ideas and commitments. That leadership is also always going to contain more conservative elements. If you look at somebody like John L. Lewis, he was not instinctually radical, was certainly not revolutionary. But he nonetheless saw that there had to be a change in the trade union movement in the United States. He had the insight and the progressive inclinations to see that the new moment demanded new perspectives, new initiatives, a new kind of unionism. But it was never going to be a unionism that pushed the boundaries toward revolutionary possibility and the creation of a worker state.

But that unionism was willing to take radical people as organizers — Communists, Trotskyists, anarchists, other social democrats, socialists — because they were the most experienced and most dedicated organizers in this mass production unionism. All of the major strikes of 1934 that prefaced the creation of the CIO were led not by traditional AFL leaders, but by revolutionaries, people in the Communist Party, people in the Trotskyist movement, people who aligned with A. J. Muste and his American Workers Party in Toledo.

What Lewis saw was the potential to use these people to advance a new kind of unionism that would organize the unorganized, organize the mass-production sector. But he was never going to give those people free rein to push the boundaries of that toward the creation of a union movement that would push politically toward, for instance, a worker’s state.All of the major strikes of 1934 that prefaced the creation of the CIO were led not by traditional AFL leaders, but by revolutionaries.

This is summed up in what is one of Lewis’s more famous statements. He was asked, “Why would you hire communists to be organizers when, in the 1920s, you used your own iron heel to crush them?” And his response was, “Well, who gets the bird? The hunter or the dog?” And so he was using these people to further his own ends, and they advanced the cause of unionism.

But at the same time, Lewis was never going to move the trade union movement onto an entirely different plane that many militants at the base and many of the radical and revolutionary organizers who worked in such dedicated ways to build the CIO might well have themselves been deeply committed to. So there was always this tension between the leaders and the militants, and how the rank-and-file workers actually related to both of those contingents.
BENJAMIN Y. FONG

What lessons can we draw from the CIO moment for today?

BRYAN D. PALMER

It’s important to remember how bleak things would’ve looked in 1933–34. I don’t think people today have an appreciation of how decimated the workers’ movement was, how devastatingly bad things were for working people in the depths of the Depression in 1932–33. And yet out of that came the upheavals of 1934, which prefaced the larger mobilizations of the CIO in the ’36–37 period. So as bad as things look today, there are the possibilities of organizing new sectors, of building different kinds of unionism, of addressing the experiences of people who’ve been locked out of the possibilities of trade union entitlements and, in some sense, isolated from the historic struggles of the working class. Things were also bleak in the mid-1930s, when dedicated corps of labor organizers, many of whom were militantly committed to socialist or communist politics and highly critical of capitalism, worked to rejuvenate unions. So I think that breakthroughs can be made even in times that look very inauspicious.

But another lesson to be learned is that those breakthroughs will never happen unless there is an organized contingent of committed leftists who are both embedded in the trade union movement and willing to fight for new kinds of unionism, but also organized outside of it. Each one of those major strikes in 1934 was led by dissidents, politically committed leftists either in Muste’s American Workers Party, Cannon’s Communist League of America, or the Communist Party of America. The difficulty we have today is not only that the workers movement has suffered decades of defeats, but also that the revolutionary Left has basically been obliterated.

The lesson of the CIO is that if you want the trade union movement to move forward, that if you want social movements in general to push forward into new territories and advance the causes of social justice and a whole series of progressive possibilities, there simultaneously needs to be a rebuilding of the revolutionary left and a rebuilding of the trade union movement, aligned with the social movements that have become so important in our time. Without that connection, it seems to me, they will be handcuffed in their capacities to affect the kind of broad social change that they want.

So the CIO moment reveals the possibilities of breaking out of confinements that seem both rigid and insurmountable, but it also reveals that what’s necessary to make those breakthroughs is a rebuilding of the Left, as well as a rebuilding of the workers’ movement and the connections that are made between that rebuilt left, the trade union movement, and the social movements of our time.

CONTRIBUTORS

Bryan D. Palmer is a Canadian historian of labor and the Left, and author of the forthcoming James P. Cannon and the Emergence of Trotskyism in the United States, 1929–1939.

Benjamin Y. Fong is honors faculty fellow and associate director of the Center for Work & Democracy at Arizona State University. He is the author of Quick Fixes: Drugs in America from Prohibition to the 21st Century Binge (Verso 2023).