Indian unions raise alarm over lack of protection for workers recruited by Israel

Indian workers gather to seek employment in Israel during a recruitment drive in Lucknow, capital of India's Uttar Pradesh state. (File/AFP)
Short Url
Updated 03 February 2024
Follow

Indian unions raise alarm over lack of protection for workers recruited by Israel

  • Those going to Israel are not registered in India’s official system for migrants
  • Indian workers are treated as ‘sacrificial goats’ and ‘fodder,’ activists warn

NEW DELHI: Trade unions in India are raising the alarm over a lack of legal protection and rights guarantees for their countrymen working in Israel.

Israel has started a recruitment drive in India as it looks to replace with manpower from South Asia the tens of thousands of Palestinian laborers who have had their work permits revoked since the start of Israel’s attacks on Gaza in October.

In November, the Indian Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship signed a three-year agreement with Tel Aviv regarding the “temporary employment” of workers in the construction and caregiving sectors.

Authorities in the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana have published advertisements offering jobs for 10,000 carpenters, ironworkers, and floor fitters. The advertised salaries were in the range of $1,680 — four times what the workers could earn at home.

While the jobs were advertised by local administrators, workers’ unions have warned that it is unclear who will be taking responsibility for the workers, as they will not be registered in India’s Emigrate system, which is run by the government to ensure that those seeking employment abroad have some protection of their rights. Israel is not one of the 18 countries included in that system.

With concerns growing, the Ministry of External Affairs said in mid-January that labor laws in Israel provide for the protection of migrant rights and labor rights and that it is “committed to safe and legal mobility and migration of our people.”

Unionists, however, say that the workers in Israel have no clarity about who is responsible for their social security and safety in a war zone. They also say that Israel’s treatment of Palestinian laborers casts doubt on how the newly recruited workers will be treated.

“They have driven out the Palestinian workers and they want to recruit Indian workers in their place ... the Indian workers are being made into sacrificial goats,” K. Hemalata, president of the Construction Workers Federation of India, told Arab News. “The labor ministry is not taking responsibility, the state government is not taking responsibility, the National Skill Development Corporation is not taking responsibility, the Ministry of External Affairs is not taking responsibility.”

Sucheta De, secretary of the All-India Central Council of Trade Unions, said the lives of Indians were being put at risk by their own government.

“If you are the government of a sovereign country, the lives and safety of the citizens of that country are your primary responsibility. And, being a sovereign country, if you assess what is going on around the world, you would definitely want your citizens to be safe from a war that is happening somewhere else,” she said. “This is a deliberate attempt to put the lives of the workers at risk.”

Representing some 100 million workers, Indian trade unions have been opposing the mass employment of Indians in Israel since the moment it became public. In early November, they issued a statement saying that Israel’s occupation of Palestine had decimated its economy, making Palestinians dependent on Israel for employment, and that providing the country with manpower would “amount to complicity on India’s part with Israel’s ongoing genocidal war against Palestinians.”

Since the Indian government has proceeded with the plan, the unions are preparing to take action against it.

“Without being transparent, luring our workers like this by sending them to war-torn areas, is a criminal act,” said Amarjeet Kaur, secretary of the All-India Trade Union Congress. “We are totally opposed to it, and we are trying to find out if legal intervention is possible.”

She told Arab News that she also had concerns about India’s complicity in Israel’s war on Gaza.

“Already 30,000 people have been killed and the vast majority of them are women and children. The Israeli government wants Palestinians working in Israel to be replaced by Indian workers. Should the Indian government do it?” Kaur said. “History will not excuse us if India stands with a government which is committing genocide.”

Teams from Israel were conducting job interviews in Rohtak — a city in Haryana — in late January. Thousands of candidates arrived not only from across the state but also from as far afield as Bihar, more than 1,000 km away.

Those who came were desperate for work. Mostly young, they see no prospect of employment in India, where the unemployment rate for those aged 20 to 34 is higher than 20 percent.

Prince Khattar, 25, who came to Rohtak to apply for a carpenter’s job, told Arab News why he wanted to go to Israel. “I heard the salary is very good, somewhere in the range of 140,000 ($1,680). I hope that once I get the job, I will get married,” he said.

Amit Kumar, 30, who applied to work as a mason, was not concerned about his safety.

“I don’t care about the tense situation in Israel. The job is important and it’s a lucrative offer. If death has to come, it will come anyway,” he said. “People die while sleeping too.”

The mostly semi-skilled candidates, not all of whom are literate, had little awareness of Israel’s ongoing war, let alone the social conditions or working conditions in which they would find themselves.

Jagmati Sangwan, an activist in Rohtak, believes the Israeli recruiters are taking advantage of India’s unemployment rates and said the way they had treated the job applicants spoke volumes about the treatment Indian workers could face in Israel.

“In the absence of proper employment opportunities, these young people are being used as fodder,” she told Arab News. “Hundreds of youths came from different states. They were sitting outside the university from 5:30 in the morning, and in the evening the Israelis said they would (only) be conducting interviews for people who were from Haryana.”

Those who arrived from outside the state told Sangwan they had not previously been informed that they would not even be considered for work opportunities.

“It’s a small example of how these young people will be treated in the whole process,” Sangwan said.

“They were all so disappointed. They said: ‘We are returning with heavy hearts. Why did they treat us like this?’”


'Disruptor' Hegseth's unsettled Pentagon starts turning against him

Updated 11 sec ago
Follow

'Disruptor' Hegseth's unsettled Pentagon starts turning against him

  • That request followed revelations last month that Hegseth had shared in a Signal chat group that accidentally included a journalist plans to kill a Houthi militant leader in Yemen two hours before the start of U.S. air strikes

WASHINGTON: Pete Hegseth wanted to make waves at the Pentagon. But less than 90 days since being sworn in as U.S. defense secretary, he appears put off balance by the very turbulence he himself created.
An ex-Fox News host, Hegseth on Monday accused his former trusted advisers of turning against him following revelations that he texted sensitive U.S. military strike plans from his personal phone to his wife, brother, attorney and others.
"What a big surprise that a few leakers get fired and a bunch of hit pieces come out," Hegseth said on the White House lawn, his children standing behind him, for an Easter celebration.

HIGHLIGHTS

• White House says Pentagon working against Hegseth

• Hegseth has accused his former advisers of turning against him

• Trump has stood by Hegseth

• Democratic lawmakers call for Hegseth to resign

The White House saw a conspiracy against Hegseth stretching far beyond the small cadre of his once loyal aides, who were fired after accusations they leaked sensitive information, to include the Department of Defense itself.
Hegseth has moved with stunning speed to reshape the department, firing top generals and admirals as he seeks to implement President Donald Trump's national security agenda and root out diversity initiatives he says are discriminatory.
"This is what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you and working against the monumental change that you are trying to implement," said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.
So far, Trump himself is standing firmly by Hegseth, saying he was "doing a great job."
"He was put there to get rid of a lot of bad people. And that is what he is doing," Trump told reporters on Monday.
The latest controversy comes after the dismissal of aides brought to the Pentagon by the Trump administration, firings triggered by a leak investigation ordered by Hegseth's chief of staff on March 21.
The dismissed aides include Dan Caldwell, a longtime colleague of Hegseth's who became one of his most trusted advisors. He was escorted out of the Pentagon last week over leaks for which he denies responsibility. Also dismissed was Hegseth's deputy chief of staff, Darin Selnick.

"TOTAL CHAOS"
John Ullyot, who was ousted from his job as a Pentagon spokesperson after two months, said Hegseth's Defense Department was in "total chaos."
"Hegseth is now presiding over a strange and baffling purge that will leave him without his two closest advisers of over a decade — Caldwell and Selnick — and without chiefs of staff for him and his deputy," Ullyot wrote in a blistering opinion piece published on Sunday in Politico.
Ullyot concluded that Trump should fire Hegseth, saying: "The dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president — who deserves better from his senior leadership."
Trump's eldest son, Donald Jr., slammed Ullyot for the remarks, saying on X that "he's officially exiled from our movement."
The latest upheaval at the Pentagon comes amid a widening purge of national security officials by the Trump administration that has reached every level of U.S. military leadership, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top Navy admiral and the military's top lawyers.
It has also included lower-ranking officials, like Colonel Susan Myers, the commander of a U.S. Space Force base in Greenland, who was fired earlier this month.
An email she wrote appeared to question Vice President JD Vance's assertions during a March visit to Greenland, where he accused Denmark of failing to protect the island from "very aggressive incursions from Russia, and from China and other nations."
A U.S. defense official said the Pentagon, because of the presence of uniformed military officials, was an institution that under normal circumstances could run itself with basic policy guidance from elected officials.
But the confusion surrounding the building's leadership was starting to erode that ability, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Another official said the firings of military officials by Hegseth and those removed as a part of the leak investigation had created a climate of uncertainty within the Pentagon.
The official added that it appeared that at times Hegseth was more focused on minor issues that gain traction on social media among his conservative base rather than clearly communicating national security policies.
Hegseth only narrowly won Senate confirmation. Many lawmakers expressed concern about his temperament and lack of experience, with three Republican senators voting against him.
Senator Roger Wicker, a Hegseth supporter and the Republican who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, has requested an investigation by the Pentagon's independent inspector into Hegseth's use of Signal.
That request followed revelations last month that Hegseth had shared in a Signal chat group that accidentally included a journalist plans to kill a Houthi militant leader in Yemen two hours before the start of U.S. air strikes. Wicker has yet to react to the latest news about a second Signal chat.
A White House official said that abandoning Hegseth would play into the hands of Democrats in Congress. They are increasingly calling for Hegseth to step down.
"Hegseth has turned the Pentagon into a place of chaos," said Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin.
"If he cared about the institution he's leading, he should man up, acknowledge he's a distraction to the military's mission, and resign."

 


Trump approval rating dips; many wary of his wielding of power, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

Updated 22 April 2025
Follow

Trump approval rating dips; many wary of his wielding of power, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

  • Fifty-seven percent - including one-third of Republicans - disagreed with the statement that "it's okay for a U.S. president to withhold funding from universities if the president doesn’t agree with how the university is run"

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump's public approval rating edged down to its lowest level since his return to the White House, as Americans showed signs of wariness over his efforts to broaden his power, a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday found.
Some 42% of respondents to the six-day poll approved of Trump's performance as president, down from 43% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted three weeks earlier, and from 47% in the hours after his January 20 inauguration.
The start of Trump's term has left his political opponents stunned as he has signed dozens of executive orders expanding his influence over both government departments and over private institutions such as universities and law firms.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Many Americans wary of Trump's power expansion efforts

• Majority oppose withholding university funds over disagreements

• Few support Trump running for a third term

While Trump's approval rating remains higher than the ratings seen during most of his Democratic predecessor's presidency, the results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll suggest many Americans are uncomfortable with his moves to punish universities he sees as too liberal and to install himself as the board chair of the Kennedy Center, a major theater and cultural institution in Washington.
Some 83% of the 4,306 respondents said that the U.S. president must obey federal court rulings even if he doesn't want to. Trump administration officials could face criminal contempt charges for violating a federal judge's order halting deportations of alleged members of a Venezuelan gang who had no chance to challenge their removals.
Fifty-seven percent - including one-third of Republicans - disagreed with the statement that "it's okay for a U.S. president to withhold funding from universities if the president doesn’t agree with how the university is run."
Trump, who has argued universities are failing to fight antisemitism on campus, has frozen vast sums of federal money budgeted for U.S. universities, including more than $2 billion for Harvard University alone.
A similar share of respondents - 66% - said they did not think the president should be in control of premier cultural institutions such as national museums and theaters. Trump last month ordered the Smithsonian Institution, the vast museum and research complex that is a premier exhibition space for U.S. history and culture, to remove "improper" ideology.
On a range of issues, from inflation and immigration to taxation and rule of law, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that Americans who disapproved of Trump's performance outnumbered those who approved on every issue in the poll. On immigration, his strongest area of support, 45% of respondents approved of Trump's performance but 46% disapproved.
The poll had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points.
Some 59% of respondents - including a third of Republicans - said America was losing credibility on the global stage.
Three-quarters of respondents said Trump should not run for a third term in office -- a path Trump has said he would like to pursue, though the U.S. Constitution bars him from doing so. A majority of Republican respondents -- 53% -- said Trump should not seek a third term.

 


Harvard sues Trump administration to stop the freeze of more than $2 billion in grants

People walk on the Business School campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., April 15, 2025. (REUTERS)
Updated 22 April 2025
Follow

Harvard sues Trump administration to stop the freeze of more than $2 billion in grants

  • Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would not bend to the government’s demands

BOSTON: Harvard University announced Monday that it was suing the Trump administration to halt a freeze on more than $2.2 billion in grants after the institution said it would defy the Trump administration’s demands to limit activism on campus.
In a letter to Harvard earlier this month, the Trump administration had called for broad government and leadership reforms at the university as well as changes to its admissions policies. It also demanded that the university audit views of diversity on campus, and stop recognizing some student clubs.
Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would not bend to the government’s demands. Hours later, the government froze billions of dollars in federal funding.
“The Government has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” the university wrote in its lawsuit.
“Nor has the Government acknowledged the significant consequences that the indefinite freeze of billions of dollars in federal research funding will have on Harvard’s research programs, the beneficiaries of that research, and the national interest in furthering American innovation and progress,” it added.
The Trump administration, in the April 11 letter, told Harvard to impose tougher discipline on protesters and to screen international students for those who are “hostile to the American values.”
It also called for broad leadership reforms at the university, changes to admissions policies and the removal of college recognition for some student clubs. The government also demanded Harvard audit its faculty and student body to ensure wide viewpoints in every department and, if necessary, diversify by admitting additional students and hiring new faculty.
Last Monday, Harvard said it would not comply, citing the First Amendment. The following day, Trump took to his Truth Social platform, questioning whether the university should lose its tax-exempt status “if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’”
The Trump administration also threatened to block the university from enrolling international students.
The university frames the government’s demands as a threat not only to the Ivy League school but to the autonomy that the Supreme Court has long granted American universities.
For the Trump administration, Harvard presents the first major hurdle in its attempt to force change at universities that Republicans say have become hotbeds of liberalism and antisemitism.
The conflict is straining the longstanding relationship between the federal government and universities that use federal money to fuel scientific breakthroughs. Long seen as a benefit to the greater good, that money has become an easy source of leverage for the Trump administration.
“Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world,” Garber wrote Monday to the Harvard community.
“We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion,” he wrote. “That is how we achieve academic excellence, safeguard open inquiry and freedom of speech, and conduct pioneering research— and how we advance the boundless exploration that propels our nation and its people into a better future.”

 


US Supreme Court appears likely to uphold Obamacare’s preventive care coverage mandate

A sign on an insurance store advertises Obamacare in San Ysidro, San Diego, California, U.S., October 26, 2017. (REUTERS)
Updated 21 April 2025
Follow

US Supreme Court appears likely to uphold Obamacare’s preventive care coverage mandate

  • The plaintiffs argued that requirements to cover those medications and services are unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts that recommended them should have been Senate- approved

WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold a key preventive-care provision of the Affordable Care Act in a case heard Monday.
Conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, along with the court’s three liberals, appeared skeptical of arguments that Obamacare’s process for deciding which services must be fully covered by private insurance is unconstitutional.
The case could have big ramifications for the law’s preventive care coverage requirements for an estimated 150 million Americans. Medications and services that could be affected include statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for high-risk women.
The plaintiffs argued that requirements to cover those medications and services are unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts that recommended them should have been Senate- approved. The challengers have also raised religious and procedural objections to some requirements.
The Trump administration defended the mandate before the court, though President Donald Trump has been a critic of the law. The Justice Department said board members don’t need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary.
A majority of the justices seemed inclined to side with the government. Kavanaugh said he didn’t see indications in the law that the board was designed to have the kind of independent power that would require Senate approval, and Barrett questioned the plaintiff’s apparently “maximalist” interpretation of the board’s role.
“We don’t just go around creating independent agencies. More often, we destroy independent agencies,” said Justice Elena Kagan said about the court’s prior opinions.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seemed likely to side with the plaintiffs. And some suggested they could send the case back to the conservative US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That would likely leave unanswered questions about which medications and services remain covered.
A ruling is expected by the end of June.
The case came before the Supreme Court after the appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. It sided with Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can’t be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings.
They were represented by well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot.
Not all preventive care was threatened by the ruling. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that some screenings, including mammography and cervical cancer screening, would still be covered without out-of-pocket costs.
The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

 


Homeland Security Secretary Noem’s purse stolen at DC restaurant, officials say

Updated 21 April 2025
Follow

Homeland Security Secretary Noem’s purse stolen at DC restaurant, officials say

  • The department said Noem had cash in her purse to pay for gifts, dinner and other activities for her family on Easter

WASHINGTON: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s purse was stolen at a Washington, D.C. restaurant Sunday night, according to department officials.
The department in an email said Noem had money in her purse to buy gifts for her children and grandchildren and to pay for Easter dinner and other activities.
The department in an email didn’t specify what was stolen, but CNN — which was first to report the story — said the thief took about $3,000 in cash, as well as Noem’s keys, driver’s license, passport, checks, makeup bag, medication and Homeland Security badge. The department said Noem had cash in her purse to pay for gifts, dinner and other activities for her family on Easter.
The Homeland Security Secretary is protected by US Secret Service agents. The Secret Service referred questions about the incident to Homeland Security headquarters.