Products from Israeli settlements must be labelled, EU court rules

The European Court of Justice has ruled that “Foodstuffs originating in the territories occupied by the state of Israel must bear the indication of their territory of origin.”

This ruling is welcome. If enforced, it should enable those, who do not wish to support the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, to avoid buying their products. The alternative would be to boycott all goods manufactured in Israel. Is that what Israel wants?

Prof Kontorovich, the director of international law at the Jerusalem-based Kohelet Policy Forum, said the European court was “approving putting a new kind of yellow star on Jewish-made products”. Pfui Kontorovich, professor or no professor. This relativism is disgusting.

Pfui also to those voices who speak of Antisemitism in the court’s ruling. (In Germany, it’s the usual suspects, whose philosemitism includes the support of Israel and its politics, such as Die Welt or BILD)

Israel accuses Ireland of Antisemitism

The Irish parliament is passing legislation that would ban Israeli goods produced in the Occupied Territories.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the Irish ambassador for a “reprimand” and has stated 

“At the meeting it was made clear to the ambassador that the hypocritical and anti-Semitic legislation will have severe ramifications on Israel-Ireland relations and Ireland’s standing in the region should the legislation be promoted”. 

Once again, Israel is using its favourite weapon, the accusation of Antisemitism, in its attempts to push back any opposition to its occupation of the West Bank.

Boycott Austria?

Austria’s new extremist right-wing government is sadly no surprise. We are, after all, surrounded by the USA, Poland, Hungary, Israel and the unmissable gnarls in the UK, France and Germany, to name but a few.

The Austrians have already announced that they will be cutting the monthly payments to refugees. 

Has the time come to boycott Austria back to its senses? How about skiing in France or in Italy instead?  How about giving the Salzburg Festival a miss this year? If it makes it any easier, Munich’s opera is better anyway.

On Boycott and Blackmail

A month ago Brussels Airlines announced that, further to requests by Palestinian passengers, it had stopped offering a sweet (Halva), as it was produced in the Occupied Territories.

I personally think that products manufactured by the occupying Israelis in the West Bank should indeed be boycotted. The Israeli government – not surprisingly – does not share this view of mine. Moreover, Israel is evidently stronger than the Palestinian lobby and the airline has now announced that it has changed its decision and that said Halva will be available again.

In the campaign to pressurise Brussels Airlines, Israel activated Diaspora Jews and soon, claims that the airline was “giving in to racism” and about anti-Semitism could be found on social media. Whatever one’s views about Israeli settlements and occupation, it is outrageous and dishonest to suggest that boycotting products made by occupier owned companies is giving in to racism or anti-Semitic.

Israel Elections - What now?

A few weeks ago, Israel’s electorate have made it clear that they are not particularly troubled by the one issue that troubles the rest of the world (that is those that take an interest): their continued occupation and settlement of Israelis on Arab land and their control over Arab population. Security, cost of living and house prices were the election issues.

For some time and more so since the last elections, voices have be heard that Israel must be punished for this immoral stance. There are calls for boycott and sanctions.

It is not difficult to name many other countries whose human rights record is poorer than Israel’s. Indeed many of the countries that chair or run UN Human rights and similar organisations are nasty dictatorships themselves. Who are they to criticise Israel? Why should anyone listen to them and why should Israel be picked for punishment?

It should be borne in mind that many of these calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions are orchestrated by countries, bodies and individuals that object to the very existence of Israel, organisations that strive for the dismantling of the Jewish state. And then there is anti-Semitism: There are doubtlessly many whose criticism of Israel is a reflection of their anti-Semitism but Israel – again doubtlessly - gives good reason for serious criticism.

So let’s forget punishment. It is about saving. Proverbs taught us that he who spares the rod hates his son (Proverbs 13, 24) Israel is not a child and the world is not its parent, but naively, I hope that the world will save Israel from the moral downward spiral it has been on for too many years. The Occupation brutalises Israel, makes it more fundamentalist and more racist. It also increases the hatred of Jews in the Diaspora.

The USA could do it easily: it funds Israel, it arms Israel and it supports Israel diplomatically. A group of conservative Jews havs successfully built a lobby that has made the support of Israel as American as apple pie and no politician dares to criticise, let alone demand a change of policy in regard to Israel. We have lately seen, that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has virtually waged war on President Obama, as yet with impunity. That leaves Europe.

I am saddened by the awareness that without effective external pressure that translates into sanctions, Israel will not give up its hold over the Occupied Territories. It would be nice to do the right thing without being force to do so. This is a plea and undemocratic hope of a change that will make Israel democratic again.  

Boycott Fairly

British Film director Ken Loach has called for a boycott of all cultural and sporting events supported by the Israeli state, adding that Israel must become a pariah state.

I am all for boycotts and, indeed, Israel has given and continues to give good reasons for boycott.

Boycotts can be legitimate on a personal level, as an expression of serious disagreement or even revulsion and more importantly as an attempt to exert group pressure for affecting change. Yet, they should be set up not only emotionally, but also fairly. I googled the terms “Ken Loach” and “boycott” and found that the one and only boycott Loach is calling for is on Israel. There is not a single other country in the world, the actions of which Loach wishes to bring to a halt by means of a boycott. How about Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, to name but a few candidates? Why does Loach support the cultural output of various dictatorships around the world by not boycotting them?

PS: It may be hard for Loach to accept, but his call for a boycott is likely to have as much impact as my blogged ruminations. 

Settlements Out?

Israel may be right in accusing the UN Human Rights Council of being “systematically one-sided and biased”. That, however, does not mean that the findings in the latest report of the Council, according to which Israel is in violation of the Geneva Convention, are incorrect.

The UNHRC’s panel of judges speaks of Israel’s “gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.” Their report states that Israel “must cease all settlement activities without preconditions” and start withdrawing all settlers from the occupied territories.

Curiously, the UNHRC has not called for an international boycott of the Settlements. It should have. 

A Call for Boycott

Israel’s parliament has recently passed, in its first reading, a law that would punish Israelis who call for boycotts of Israeli institutions. This new law explicitly includes boycotts of goods and services originating in the Jewish settlements of the Occupied Territories.

This outrageous undemocratic law that would try to gag free speech should not be allowed to pass. If it does, it should be disregarded by so many as to make it unenforceable.

Do not buy goods produced in settlements in the Occupied Territories.

More on boycott

I received quite a few emails commenting on my last blog, (Why do some Israelis call the world to boycott Israel?) Some of them questioned the efficacy of a boycott. The point I tried to raise was not the effectiveness and efficiency of boycotts. What I am interested in is:

1. Does Israel’s occupation of the West Bank justify a boycott and if so what kind of boycott.

2. Is it legitimate to do as Dr. Neve Gordon has done and “attack” one’s own country abroad?

Uri Avnery, the seasoned and well-respected Israeli left-wing politician and publicist, advocates not a general boycott on the State of Israel but rather a specific boycott on the product of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.

He writes: “Some 11 years ago, the Gush Shalom movement, in which I am active, called for a boycott of the product of the settlements. Its intention was to separate the settlers from the Israeli public, and to show that there are two kinds of Israelis. The boycott was designed to strengthen those Israelis who oppose the occupation, without becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.” See LINK

This is also the thinking behind last week's decision by the Norwegian government to divest from an Israeli company (Elbit) because of their involvement with the “Separation Fence” that is being built on Palestinian land.

Why do some Israelis call the world to boycott Israel?

In an open letter published by the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Neve Gordon, a senior lecturer at the Ben Gurion University in Beer-Sheba, called on the world to boycott Israel: “Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians – my two boys included – does not grow up in an apartheid regime.”

Anat Matar, a colleague at the Tel Aviv University, came out in his support: “…only when the Israeli society’s well-heeled strata pay a real price for the continuous occupation will they finally take genuine steps to put an end to it.”

The general reaction in Israel, however, was uproar. Ben Gurion University’s President stated that Gordon’s remarks were “…an abuse [of] the freedom of speech prevailing in Israel and at the Ben Gurion University”. Moreover, they were “irresponsible and morally reprehensible”. She also suggested: “Academics who entertain such resentment toward their country are welcome to consider another professional and personal home.”

Not only right-wing Israelis are uncomfortable with calls such as Gordon’s or Matar’s. Gordon admits, “A global boycott can’t help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism. It also brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its egregious violations of human rights?)”

Jewish history is a long story of the successful Christian drive at marginalising Jews and Judaism. When that came to an end after the Holocaust, Arab countries started to systematically boycott Israel. For many years they successfully blackmailed their European and other trade partners into boycotting the newly founded Jewish State.

These were boycotts stemming from hatred of Jews and a wish to get rid of them and later from a concerted and clearly stated Arab wish to eliminate the Jewish State of Israel. This hope is still very much a fact of life.

However, when Gordon calls for external pressure he does so as an Israeli patriot and out of love of his country. Gordon, Matar and many other Israelis who pray and hope that the new US administration will force Israel to get out of the Occupied Territories do not hate Israel; they love their country and want it to thrive. They just hate the grossly immoral condition Israel has deteriorated into over the last forty years. To change that, they call for a boycott.

Gordon suggests pressure be placed in a “gradual sustainable manner that is sensitive to context and capacity” and talks of “sanctions on and divestment from Israeli firms operating in the occupied territories, followed by actions against those that help sustain and reinforce the occupation in a visible manner.”

Is that wrong?