David Singer: European Union Bites Off More Than it Can Chew in Judea and Samaria

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

France has set in train a diplomatic and politically-motivated semantic assault on Israel that could ultimately see the European Union biting off more than it can chew.

A press release noted that the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg on 12 November had found in favour of France’s determined effort to protect unwitting French consumers being possibly misled when they buy cheese, wine or other produce sold by Jews originating in Judea and Samaria:

“... the Grand Chamber of the Court ruled that foodstuffs originating in territories occupied by  the  State  of  Israel  must  bear  the  indication  of  their  territory  of  origin,  accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from a locality or a group of localities  constituting an Israeli settlement within that territory, by the indication of that provenance.”

This decision lays down stringent labelling requirements for Jewish producers in Judea and Samaria to ensure their products were kosher enough to be sold into the European Union.

The sham that this would prevent consumers from believing such products were “Made in Israel” took on a far more  sinister political resonance asthe press release continued:

“as regards the issue whether the indication ‘Israeli settlement’ is mandatory, the Court first of all underlined that the settlements established in some of the territories occupied by the State of Israel are characterised by the fact that they give concrete expression to a policy of population transfer conducted by that State outside its territory, in violation of the rules of general international humanitarian law. The Court then held that the omission of that indication, with the result that only the territory of origin is indicated, might mislead consumers. Consumers have no way of knowing, in the absence of any information capable of enlightening them in that respect, that a foodstuff comes from a locality or a set of localities constituting a settlement established in one of those territories in breach of the rules of international humanitarian law. The Court noted that,under Regulation No 1169/2011 ,the provision of information to consumers must enable them to make informed choices, with regard not only to health, economic, environmental and social considerations, but also to ethical considerations and considerations relating to the observance of international law. The Court underlined in that respect that such considerations could influence consumers’ purchasing decisions”.  

All this pompous gobbledy gook being required for labelling the source of products made in territory disputed between Jews and Arabs for the last 100 years is deeply disturbing. There is no appeal from this decision.

The European Union could be in a real political bind as a result. The labelling requirements introduced by the European Union in 2011 and interpreted in 2015 has led it down this disastrous path promising only ridicule and contempt.

To be consistent and not be subjected to charges that it is deliberately targeting Jews and inciting Jew-hatred – the European Union needs to insist on similar stringent labelling requirements being immediately applied on goods originating from more than 150 disputed territories around the world.

Alternatively – the European Union could get itself out of this embarrassing labelling war and PR disaster by simply requiring goods originating from Israeli settlements to state “Product of Judea” or“Product of Samaria”.

Judea and Samaria – the historic and geographic terms used for the disputed territories for the last 3000 years – were relabelled the “The West Bank” by Jordan in 1950 – and enthusiastically embraced by the European Union.

The chickens from Judea and Samaria have come home to roost. Truth in labelling by the feckless European Union is long overdue.

Author’s note:The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”  — one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators —whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

EU Labels: A French Oleh Writes ...

Here's a post on European double standards by French oleh Jean Vercors.

He will be no stranger to regular readers of this blog.

His article is provocatively entitled "The European Union is happy : it's just following in the footsteps of the Nazi boycott to make the world better".

Writes Jean Vercors:

The European Union (apart from the Czech Republic, which has all my respect) approved without hesitation Wednesday the implementation of the labeling of products originating " Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories ".

What is immediately striking is that the EU is not at all embarrassed that its decision closely resembles the Nazi boycott of 1933. The old demons die har . In 1933, an economic boycott against the Jews was decided by the Nazi leadership, just weeks after coming to power on 30 January that year.

For the EU, these exports to label sources "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories", that is to say the geographical areas annexed by Israel after the 1967 war: the Golan Heights , Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Jews, we must say, dared to defend itself in a war that Europe believed lost to Israel: remember the embargo of Charles de Gaulle and his statements after Israel crushed the enemy [in 1967]. They dared to reclaim their historic lands of Judea and Samaria, and Jerusalem! Who can forgive the Jews for refusing to submit? Certainly not Europe.

The European measure involves mainly agricultural products: fruits and vegetables, wine, honey, olive oil, eggs, dates, chicken ... because the vast majority of industrial exports "colonies" consists of components or spare parts then assembled in finished products, which makes them difficult to trace.

Cosmetics from the Dead Sea are also targeted, but the EU still does not know that the Ahava company was bought by the Chinese (Chinese investment firm Fosun ) and that the Chinese do not perhaps hear with the same ear.

Will EU technocrats, one day soon, draw signs on Jewish shops in Europe that sell these products, as did the Nazi SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Troopers ) in 1933?

The Star of David was painted in yellow and black across thousands of doors and windows , accompanied by anti-Semitic slogans such as " Do not buy from Jews," "Jews are our misfortune ."

Acts of violence were perpetrated against Jews and Jewish property across Germany, the police intervening only rarely .

According to the directive given by the European Commission, the mention of the country of origin must take into account the heading under which the territories are most commonly known.

The indication " Israeli settlement " should be specified in brackets, for example.

Mention may be formulated as follows: "Product of the West Bank (Israeli settlement )"; if the product comes from "Palestine" but not a "colony,"  the statement could be: "Product of the West Bank ( Palestinian produce )."

The formulation is left to the discretion of member states, which are responsible for implementing and enforcing EU legislation on consumer protection . The economic impact of this measure could create unemployment and misery of the Palestinians, but the EU does not care: for it is a small price to pay to punish the Jews.

The New York Times, for example, recalled that at least 25,000 Palestinians work for Israeli companies operating in the "so-called occupied territories " and are paid three to four times more than wages in Palestinian businesses. Many will lose their jobs but the EU does not care.

According to Israel, "it is strange or annoying to see that the EU chooses to apply double standards towards Israel, while there are more than 200 territorial disputes in the rest of the world, the case of Western Sahara, which Morocco took control in 1975 and which is not subject to the same treatment by the EU being one of them. "

Also this recalls the Arab boycott (inspired by the Nazi model) in respect of Israel established even before the existence of the State of Israel, coordinated by the League of Arab States in December 1945.

Why labelling Israeli goods and not Moroccan products manufactured in Western Sahara annexed and colonised?

And Danish products made in Greenland? Will they be labelled?

And the products of Ceuta and Melilla occupied by Spain?

And what about the products from Martinique, Guyane, Réunion, Corsica, Brittany, Basque country occupied by France?

And the products manufactured in the Turkish part of Cyprus colonised and annexed?

And those manufactured by the Chinese occupied Tibet?

Or the products manufactured in the occupied Dutch Guiana, the products Falklands Islands (Malvinas) occupied by England?

The EU prefers to import rapugees ["rapefugees"] and terrorists rather than Israeli tomatoes?

Targeting only Israel and ignoring the others is quite unbearable, but the EU does so with one voice having a good conscience, feeling of doing what is right and human. Before the war as it was thought in Germany that getting rid of the Jewish problem, it was for good.

The great humanists and defenders of EU human rights does not even attempt to justify its double standards against Israel.

Israel is so strong, and Europe, alas, so advanced in its self-destruction, that the Jews with their long history are likely to see European civlisation disappear like so many civilisations before it.

Pretending hypocritically to fight injustice by labeling, by putting again to humanity the idea of Jews as pariahs, Europeans are only encourage hatred and violence (in the name of justice!).

The Czech Republic, Hungary and Greece (which, interestingly, is the most antisemitic country in Europe according to the latest study by the ADL) have rejected this discriminatory directive.

The Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó said

"This is an ineffective instrument, irrational and that do not contribute to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but causes damages."

Czech MP Robin Böhnisch, denounced these measures.

"The argument of the European Commission that the guidelines are a service for European consumers is absurd. It is obviously intended to put Israel under pressure, and at a time that requires a meticulous political activism rather than awkward.

 The creation of the European Economic Community was founded on the idea that we cannot achieve peace and security as trade, economic cooperation and employment creation - not by boycotts and isolation. The same is true for Israelis and Palestinians ".

The EU claims to be fighting against racism and discrimination; since the Amsterdam Treaty ( 1999) yet it does nothing to protest, for example, the massacres of Christians.
The purpose of this labeling directive is intended to reduce the Jewish nation, to press home the shameful trope, via each label, that Israel is a colonial villain , a thief of lands*.

(Permitted for Publication with the following: © Jean Vercors Dreuz.info.)

*On the latter point (adds Daphne) readers may be interested to see what Ari Briggs, of Regavim, tells J-Wire here 


Meanwhile, across the Herring Pond ...

David Singer: European Union Drowns In Sea of Inconsistencies

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The European Union (EU) has concluded an unhappy 2015 with the introduction of racist and discriminatory labelling laws for Jewish goods and products originating from Judea and Samaria (West Bank)  and East Jerusalem.

EU members Hungary, Greece and the Czech Republic have rejected these laws which have also been condemned in a bipartisan resolution presented to the US Congress.

The EU's Ambassador to Israel – Lars Faaborg-Andersen – has attempted to justify these labelling laws as being simply an expression of the EU's longstanding view that such designated territories are not part of Israel.

He omitted to state that EU policy will never support any part of these disputed territories becoming part of the State of Israel because the EU claims that Jewish settlement there since 1967 is illegal in international law.

However there is no binding legal decision in any Court that substantiates this EU claim.

Indeed there is territory-specific legislation to the contrary – article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter - that confirms the legal right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem.

Jews lived in these areas for millennia prior to being driven out in 1948 by six invading Arab armies - facts which somehow appear to have escaped the EU's notice.

Such EU policy also flies in the face of Security Council Resolution 242 calling for secure and recognised borders to be established in negotiations between Israel and her neighbours.

The EU's anti-Israel stance no doubt encouraged the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to reject offers by Israel in 2000/01 and 2008 to cede its claims in more than 90 per cent of Judea and Samaria as part of any peace treaty to end the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict.

Why accept 90 per cent when the EU is supporting the PLO's demand for 100 per cent?

The EU, in so acting, has repudiated the decisions adopted in 1922 by 23 of its current 28 members unanimously endorsing the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - whose terms  provided for:

1. Jewish self-determination in 22 per cent of the territory of the Mandate including East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria

2. Arab self-determination in the remaining 78 per cent of the territory of the Mandate – today called Jordan.

Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, Ireland and Malta are the only current members of the EU that were not members of the League of Nations when these fateful decisions were taken.

The Jews had been short-changed by the League of Nations – which reduced the area within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted to just 22 per cent of that previously contemplated by the High Contracting Powers – Great Britain, France, Italy (all current EU members) and Japan – at the April 1920 San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres signed in August of that year.

The Jews nevertheless reluctantly accepted these restrictions. The Arabs rejected them. The PLO  deemed them "null and void" in 1968.

Fast forward to 2016 and the European Union continues to backtrack on these internationally-binding commitments to the Jewish people made by the overwhelming majority of EU members 94 years ago.

Conditions for entry into the EU require that each applicant:

1. Be democratic

2. Have a free market Government together with corresponding freedoms and institutions and

3. Respect for the rule of law.

The EU does not require the PLO to meet these criteria – yet opposes any claim to the historic and  biblical heartland of the Jewish people by Israel, which shares these EU fundamental values.

The EU should hang its collective head in shame as it drowns in this sea of inconsistencies entirely  of its own making.

David Singer: European Union Suffers Continuing Backlash Over Racist Labelling Laws

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The Czech Parliament’s lower House  – by an overwhelming majority with all parties except the Communists supporting it – has joined fellow European Union (EU) members – Greece and Hungary – in urging the Czech Government to refuse implementing EU racist and discriminatory labelling laws for Jewish goods produced in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Czech Culture Minister Daniel Herman said that it was:

“absolutely necessary to reject the efforts to discriminate against the only democracy in the Middle East.”

Another Czech politician Frantisek Laudat argued that the guidelines:

“may evoke awkward reminiscence of marking Jewish people during World War II” 

The Czech Assembly declared the new EU guidelines were:

“motivated by a political positioning versus the State of Israel”

That political positioning has seen the EU:

1. Claim that settlement by Jews in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem is illegal in international law despite the provisions of article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter specifically authorising and preserving the rights of Jews to live there for the purpose of reconstituting the Jewish National Home.

2. Engage in supporting unauthorised, unapproved and surreptitious Arab building projects in Area “C” in Judea and Samaria where administrative and security control is solely vested in Israel under the Oslo Accords.

3. Ignore that Jews lived in these self-same designated areas for generations before being driven out and ethnically cleansed by six Arab armies in 1948  – resulting in these areas being illegally annexed and occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967.

To add to the EU’s current woes and expose the hypocrisy of these labelling regulations – the EU’s second highest judicial body - the General Court – has determined that the 2012 fishing agreement between the EU and Morocco must be annulled because it also applied to the Western Sahara - disputed territory under Morocco’s control since 1976.

The court cited United Nations resolutions classifying the Western Sahara as occupied – faulting the EU for pursuing its agreement with Morocco without making any distinction concerning products manufactured in the Western Sahara.

Although there are some 200 areas of disputed territory around the world – the EU has seen fit to only require special labelling laws for Jewish goods originating from territories disputed between Jews and Arabs.

The EU is considering an appeal.

The ire of the US Congress has now also been raised.

Representative Nita Lowey (Democrat) sponsored the introduction of the following resolution into the House of Representatives on 16 December – which has now been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

“H.Res. 567: Expressing opposition to the European Commission interpretive notice regarding labeling Israeli products and goods manufactured in the West Bank and other areas, as such actions undermine efforts to achieve a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace process.”

Numerous attempts by Secretary of State John Kerry to bring about a negotiated “two state solution”  – first laid out in the 2003 Bush Roadmap  – have come to nought.

These discriminatory labelling regulations must materially affect any future negotiations and the opportunity for the first time in recorded history to create a second Arab State – in addition to Jordan – within the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine.

The EU cannot realistically cancel these regulations – given the anger and resentment such back down would engender in the Arab world.

Such blatant anti-Jewish bias ends the EU playing a constructive role in influencing any division of these territories between their Arab and Jewish claimants.

The EU instead finds itself being increasingly labelled with a particular odium and tainted reputation because of these malicious regulations.

David Singer: Israel – European Union In State Of Disunion

Image: www.algemeiner.com

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Hungary and Greece have broken ranks with the European Union in signalling they want nothing to do with the recently introduced EU labelling laws requiring Jewish products originating in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to have special labels and not be marked “made in Israel”.

These decisions follow hard on the heels of European Parliament delegation for relations with Israel chairman – Fulvio Martusciello – warning:

“The decision to label products was a mistake. Europe is loud about Israel, but quiet about 200 other conflicts around the world.” 

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó announced Hungary’s decision:

"We do not support the decision to make a special mark on products coming from the West Bank or the Golan Heights. This step is inefficient and illogical. It would only hurt attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." 

Greece’s decision was communicated by letter from its Foreign Minister to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after a visit by Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras to Israel – when extensive bilateral cooperation in economic matters, technology, science, education, trade, energy, and agriculture were concluded.

Meantime German Chancellor Angela Merkel is backing a recent German Foreign Ministry statement that the new EU labeling initiative:

“does not deal with a stigmatized warning decal, as many have presented… What Brussels wants is, however, only a clear designation of the origin of the products”.

This Foreign Ministry thinking was no doubt influenced by the illegal invasion of many hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants into Germany and the huge economic and social problems faced by Germany in their resettlement.

Merkel has publicly opposed boycotts of Israel – which continues to receive preferential market access from Germany.

Will Germany’s Foreign Ministry now call for similar EU labelling of goods originating from other disputed regions around the world?

Surprisingly, EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini – following talks with EU foreign ministers on 14 December – chose to refer to two points that were not part of the agenda but were debated among those present:

“One is related to the Middle East peace process, especially after the adoption of the technical guidelines on indication of origin. We had an exchange of views in this respect with the ministers, and we commonly decided that it was important also for me to pass this message publicly that the Council and the European Union stay united on these technical guidelines on indication of origin, which is in no way a boycott and should in no way be interpreted as one”

Claiming to be united on these “technical guidelines” – despite their having been already rejected by Hungary and Greece – is surely deceptive and misleading.

Describing the labelling of Jewish products – but not Arab products – as “technical guidelines” is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

They constitute clear “stigmatized warning decals”.

Mogherini continued:

“The second thing on which the Council was completely united is our continued engagement in the Middle East peace process and in broader bilateral relations with Israel. There is full unity and solidarity among member states and among European institutions on that.”

Mogherini is seriously mistaken if she thinks Israel will allow a clearly conflicted EU to remain part of the Quartet of Mideast peacemakers which also includes the UN, United States and Russia.

No amount of doublespeak will enable the EU to escape the charges that these labelling requirements:

1. Are racist and discriminate against Jews

2. Trample on Jewish vested legal rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem

Double standards and political hypocrisy will eventually bring even the most powerful down to earth.

David Singer: Israel Ensures European Union Swallows Poison Pill

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The European Union’s (EU) discriminatory and racist labelling requirements for Jewish goods and products originating from Judea and Samaria has now seen Israel effectively label the EU as “persona non grata” in the diplomatic process between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

The EU finds itself in this sorry position following Israel’s decision to reassess the involvement of EU bodies in that diplomatic process and to suspend contacts with the EU and its representatives until that reassessment is completed.

The labelling requirements reflect the EU’s political position that settlement by Jews in Judea and Samaria is illegal in international law. This claim has never been the subject of any binding authoritative legal decision.

The International Court of Justice decision on 9 July 2004 was only an advisory opinion sought by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and not a legally binding precedent.

That opinion was itself deficient since the Court was never asked by the Secretary-General to consider the legal effect of two territory-specific pieces of international law applicable to Judea and Samaria. Those provisions – article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter – vested and preserved the legal right to “close settlement by Jews” in Judea and Samaria for the purposes of reconstituting the Jewish National Home.

At best the EU’s longstanding position – that influenced its labelling laws – is only an opinion, and nothing more.

The EU should think very carefully before imposing any retaliatory trade action against Israel for freezing the EU out of the peace process – since Israel still has some more bitter medicine for the EU to swallow:

1. Forbidding the transfer of EU funds to non-government organisations in Israel engaged in activities designed to advance the interests of the Israeli Arab population and to interfere in the internal affairs of a member State of the United Nations.

2. Ending all co-operation with the EU in Area C in Judea and Samaria by terminating existing development and infrastructure programs for the benefit of the Arab population and forbidding any such EU activities there in the future.

 The EU’s labelling laws contravene the joint statement issued by the Quartet – America, Russia, The European Union and the United Nations - on 10 April 2002:

“We reiterate that there is no military solution to the conflict and call on the parties to move towards a political resolution of their disputes based on UNSCR 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace — which formed the basis for the Madrid Conference of 1991. We reaffirm our support for the objective expressed by

President Bush and spelled out in UNSCR 1397, of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side within secure and recognized borders.”

Attempting to influence any political resolution regarding secure and recognized boundaries – using its labelling requirements to pressure Israeli territorial concessions – could spell the death knell for President Bush’s Roadmap and its “two-state solution”.

The EU is free to pursue any policy it wants – but also must take full responsibility for the consequences of its reprehensible labelling laws and Israel’s rapid response.

Should the EU now gracefully bow out of the Quartet due to its clearly revealed conflict of interest and one-sided bias – or does it have to be told to go packing by the other members of the Quartet if their impartiality in the peace process is to be maintained?

The EU cannot remain a member of the Quartet whilst implementing labelling requirements that favour Arab claims over Jewish claims.

The EU now faces swallowing a poison pill of its own making. 

David Singer: Israel's History Trumps European Union Labelling Laws

Here's the latest article from Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Jewish history spanning 3000 years is set to trump the European Union’s (EU) unprecedented action requiring the way goods are labelled originating from four areas of territory disputed between Arabs and Jews – the West Bank, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

Similar labelling requirements have not been stipulated by the EU for products emanating from 150 other disputed territories around the world - inviting the charge of Jew-hatred against the EU for introducing this territory-specific policy smacking of double standards and blatant racial discrimination. The aims of the new labelling requirements as set out in the European Commission’s Interpretative Notice (the Notice) – indicate they are not limited to consumer protection – as America’s State Department falsely claims – but also extend to advancing the EU political stance adopted on these four territories following their loss to Israel by Jordan, Egypt and Syria in the 1967 Six Day War: 

“There is indeed a demand for clarity from consumers, economic operators and national authorities about existing Union legislation on origin information of products from Israeli-occupied territories. The aim is also to ensure the respect of Union positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the Union of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967."

Promoting the EU’s political position under the guise of introducing consumer protection labelling laws is reprehensible. The Notice gives credence to the infamous anti-Israel BDS campaign operating in these four territories by inexplicably and unnecessarily introducing the term “Palestine” into its content:

“For products from Palestine that do not originate from settlements, an indication which does not mislead about the geographical origin, while corresponding to international practice, could be 'product from the West Bank (Palestinian product)' , ‘product from Gaza’ or 'product from Palestine'." 

The EU sinks further into the political quicksand of the 47-years-old conflict involving these territories with this bizarre footnote:

“This designation [Palestine] shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the Member States on this issue.”

Jurgen Hardt from German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democratic Union asserts:

"The decision to label products from the West Bank is not a step for consumer protection, but will lead to the creation of stigma against Israel"  

Hungary’s foreign minister Péter Szijjártó, terms the Commission’s labelling requirements “irrational” – not contributing to solving the conflict but causing more problems and damage.

Fulvio Martusciello – Chairman, European Parliament Delegation for Relations with Israel – states that the labelling requirement is a mistake and that many European nations are having second thoughts about the wisdom of the EU decision.

The EU Notice contains these reassuring words of comfort:

“This notice also aims at maintaining open and smooth trade, is not hindering trade flows and should not be construed to do so.”

Accepting this EU expression of magnanimous goodwill at face value, Israel should label Jewish products originating from the “the West Bank” as originating from “Judea and Samaria” – the correct historical, biblical and geographical names used for 3000 years until Jordan invaded and illegally annexed Judea and Samaria – designating them the “West Bank” in 1950.

A few labelling ideas spring to mind:

1. “Made by Jews in Judea and Samaria – the ancient biblical homeland of the Jewish people”

2. “Produced by Jews in Judea and Samaria – heartland of the Jewish National Home”

Similar labelling could identify the Jewish source of Golan and East Jerusalem products.
The EU’s stated concern for consumer protection would be unequivocally satisfied – without prejudicing Israel’s claims to these disputed territories.

The EU has opened a can of worms.

European Union Risks “Jew-hater” Label: David Singer

http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/todays-anti-bds-poster.html

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The European Union (EU) runs the risk of being labelled “Jew-hater” – should it proceed with its plans requiring supermarkets and other retailers to label products made by Jews in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) differently from those made by Jews in Israel.

No matter what spin the EU uses to justify any such discriminatory labelling – the EU will be seen to be actively supporting the 2005 Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel – whose manifesto states:

“We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel … We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel …” 

“These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall 

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”

The BDS campaign regards the ending of all trade and economic relations with Jews living in Judea and Samaria as just the “first step” in its campaign of racial vilification, denigration and delegitimisation designed to ultimately dismantle the Jewish State.

The EU appears to be readying itself to help the BDS campaign achieve this “first step” – as the foreign ministers of 16 of the EU’s 28 member states have urged EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini to introduce the labelling regulations – stating in a letter dated 16 April that they: 

“remain of the view that this is an important step in the full implementation of EU longstanding policy, in relation to the preservation of the two-state solution. The continued expansion of Israeli illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and other territories occupied by Israel since 1967 threatens the prospect of a just and final peace agreement.”

These foreign ministers conveniently ignore that:

1. The two-state solution – as contemplated by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap – is dead and buried after fruitless negotiations and rejected Israeli offers made during the past 20 years have all come to nought. Any hope of peacefully resolving the competing territorial claims of both Jews and Arabs to Judea and Samaria under these negotiating parameters is a figment of the EU’s imagination.

2. The Palestinian Authority – Israel’s negotiating partner under Oslo and the Roadmap – no longer exists, having been disbanded by decree of Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January 2013.

 3. Earlier two-state solutions were rejected by the Arabs:

(i) when that result could have been achieved with the stroke of an Arab League pen at any time between 1948-1967 or

(ii) when previously proposed by:

(a) Britain in 1923

(b) the Peel Commission in 1937

(c) the United Nations in 1947

4. Jews are residing legally in Judea and Samaria pursuant to the rights vested in the Jewish people under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

The EU labelling diktat – if it proceeds – will have very little economic effect.

Such EU action will however align the EU squarely with those BDS racists and Jew-haters who continue to drool at the prospect of Israel being replaced by another Arab and Islamic State.

The EU will indeed merit the “Jew-hater” tag  – should its ill-considered and misconceived labelling action proceed.

"The BDS Hoax is set to Swallow Many More Well-intended People into its Jew-hating Vortex" warns David Singer

I've blogged quite a bit this week about BDS, and have been recommending to anyone who will listen Douglas Murray's characteristically superb article here

In this, his latest article, and a must-read piece, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer continues the theme of BDS, and as his title shows ("BDS – Sinister Hoax With Genocidal Objective") he's pulling no punches.

He writes:

The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS) instituted in 2005 by “Palestinian civil Society” against Israel and its civil society continues to attract people from all around the world – including Jews and Israeli Arabs – who support the campaign without realising its genocidal objective.

The BDS manifesto makes clear that its punitive measures are to be pursued until Israel ends

“its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands”

These are code words effectively calling for Israel’s destruction since:

1. According to the PLO: Israel is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab home land, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. 

2. According to Hamas: Israel is an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.

Those who have:

(i) boycotted theatre performances by Israeli groups in Barcelona,

(ii) stripped supermarket shelves of Israeli food products in London,

(iii) marched in South Africa to protest Woolworths stocking Israeli made goods or

(iv) protested outside Max Brenner outlets in Sydney

are actually supporting a racist campaign that calls for the total elimination of the Jewish State.

However the European Union (EU)  – mindful of the Jew-hatred endemic in the BDS campaign  – yet anxious to appease its Arab trading partners and burgeoning Arab populations within its member countries – has targeted only the West Bank – presently working to enact measures requiring Israel to label products coming from Jewish settlements there (following guidelines established on 18 July 2013). These EU policy initiatives are ostensibly based on the 1980 Venice Declaration – which stressed that:

(i) Israel needed to end its territorial occupation of the West Bank

(ii) Israeli settlements constituted a serious obstacle to the peace process in the Middle East.

(iii) Jewish settlements established there - as well as modifications in population and property – were illegal under international law.

The EU position on the illegality of those Jewish settlements has now been totally discredited following the recent decision by Norway’s largest pension fund – KPL – to sell its shareholdings in Heidelberg Cement AG and Cemex SAB de SV – whose two Israeli subsidiaries are currently operating quarries established after 1967 in Area C of the West Bank.

Under the 1995 Oslo Accords Israel has sole civil and security control in Area C – comprising 60 per cent of the West Bank where no more than 4 per cent of the West Bank’s Arab population currently lives.

KPL first sought advice on the legal situation pertaining in the West Bank from the Oslo-based International Law and Policy Institute (ILPI)  – an independent institute focusing on good governance, peace and conflict, and international law.

The advice completely refutes the EU’s long held position. Senior ILPI Partner Gro Nyusten – former Norwegian Foreign Affairs staffer, former Associate Professor of International Humanitarian Law/the Law on Armed Conflict at the University of Oslo, from 2008 Associate Professor at the Defence Staff University College in Oslo and former chair of the Council on Ethics of the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global – advised KPL that:

(i) international law does not provide “unambiguous answers”

(ii) it was “highly probable” that the operation under Israeli licence of the subject quarries was inconsistent with the requirements of the law of belligerent occupation

(iii) a case on quarrying activities in Area C went all the way to the Israeli Supreme Court -but was rejected because the court concluded that it raised issues that could only be resolved through political channels and not through the court

(iv) Occupation law did not prohibit Israel from making use of real property – but Israel’s role was restricted to that of a caretaker that must restore such property to the “occupied power” once the conflict has ended. Significantly Ms Nyusten failed to identify that the “occupied power” was Jordan – whose annexation of the West Bank in 1950 was declared illegal by every country except Great Britain and Pakistan.

(v) The issue of whether Israel was entitled to open new quarries which did not exist before 1967 – was “controversial”.

(vi) The 1995 Oslo Accords (Oslo II) “presume” the ultimate transfer of Area C from Israeli to Palestinian control through so-called final status negotiations. Ms Nyusten however did not point to any provision in the Oslo Accords that supports this “presumption”.

Ms Nyusten’s legal opinion also failed to consider two territory-specific provisions in international law sanctioning the right of Jews to live in the West Bank for the purposes of reconstituting the Jewish National Home there – article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter. In the end KPL – faced with no definitive international law to justify its decision to disinvest - concluded:

“that the ethical arguments carry the heaviest weight in this case”.

Ethics are not law.

EU decisions supposedly based on judicially determined principles of international law were exposed as myths that can no longer be legally or politically sustained.

The BDS hoax is set to swallow many more well-intended people into its Jew-hating vortex.

The EU could suffer a similar fate with the introduction of its labelling policies – no longer being able to rely on non-existent international law to camouflage that decision – whilst opening itself to the charge it is supporting a genocidal campaign designed to dismantle the Jewish State.

Common sense will hopefully prevail.