About the teachers' strike: What comes after (but) crosses out what comes before it

As of the moment of writing this article, the teachers' strike, demanding their financial and professional rights and a trade union to represent them, has not ended. Many articles, statements, and interventions discussed the strike, whether through the written press, communication networks, or press conferences. This article exclusively discusses the position rejecting the teachers' strike according to two phrases that spread through writings and statements, and we mean my two sentences: We are with the teachers' just demands, but we are against the strike. P (but) here opens the appetite to examine that sentence. And the second sentence that the strike disrupts the educational process.

The first sentence at the beginning carries quite a bit of deception, as the contradiction between its two parts is clear, as one of the most basic rights of teachers and established in the law is the right to strike, and I have no doubt that whoever writes that sentence fully understands this, so why write it when the situation is like this? Simply because it seems that he feels embarrassed by denying the right of teachers to their legitimate demands, and at the same time he takes a stand against the strike, so he falls into the prohibited that cannot be addressed, which is the blatant contradiction, but that sentence may be betting that its author will do its work in destabilizing the teachers in their strike, as it is With the rights, but.... To cross out the (but) that preceded it, so the author of the sentence becomes actually against the strike, even if he claims that he is with the rights of teachers. Herein lies the deception.

This is from one side. On the other hand, the second sentence that is repeated with the previous sentence is: with the rights of teachers and against disrupting the educational process. I mean, against the strike, because the strike disrupts, without any doubt, the educational process. However, here stands the obvious truth: The legislator, in whatever country he was, fully understood and realized when he affirmed the right to strike that striking as a legal right for workers in various sectors will necessarily disrupt life in the concerned sector, whether it is health or educational, industrial or service, otherwise it is simply not The meaning of the strike mechanism is as a mechanism for union pressure if it does not disrupt a facility or a sector, then disruption here is a mechanism for pressure, and that is the meaning of strike in the first place, and every time the unions announce a strike, whether in the health sector, transportation, university institutions or schools, it only rises in the face of those strikers The shout that is presented as a condemnation of the strikers: You are disrupting the procession.

However, in our estimation, the utterers of those sentences only realize what we have mentioned above. However, they do not say the double truth: Those who do not fulfill the rights of teachers are the first and foremost responsible for disrupting the educational process, not those who demand their rights. The second fact is that the government can meet teachers' financial demands by reconsidering the distribution of the budget in favor of the most vital sectors for the citizen, health, education, housing, agriculture and infrastructure, at the expense of the sectors most responsive to the Oslo Accords. This is the path that the government must take, not the way of violating the agreements with representatives of the teachers' movement, nor spreading the political background to their strike.