Forcing Language Down Our Throats - UPDATED

The decision of the EU Court in the Psagot Winery case contains this language:

"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... 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."

From that it seems that any winery or factory for that matter must use the term "settlement" on its label.

But why is that the term to be employed?

Why not "community"? Or another synonymous term?

Credit

Why is "indication of their territory of origin", which plainly refers to a geographical location, to be solely defined as "settlement" rather than actual geography?

The geographical terms "Judea" and Samaria" after all appear in the UN's 1947 Partition Plan to delineate borders. Here:

...The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih...at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El Mansi...From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara, rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi'Ara

Can this: "Produced at the Psagot Winery, in the territory of Samaria", be used?   

Or can "Produced at the Locality of Psagot" be used?

If not, why?

Why is the Court obligating, as regards "indication", that only the specific term "settlement" is mandatory?

By the way, in French, "settlement" is translated as colonie (see here). That truly would be a matter of bad English with unnecessary negative connotation.

This is, in addition to all else wrong with the decision, stuffing langauge down or throats.

__________

P.S.

Yes, I am aware that the issue the Court addressed was whether the products made in Judea and Samaria can be labelled "Made in Israel".  See this as an example of addressing that.

P.P.S.

If the wine, or whatever, produced in Judea & Samaria cannot be labeled as "Made in Israel", it equally should not be labeled as "Made in Palestine" so, is it "Made in the Disputed/Occupied/Liberated Territories of Somewhere or Other"?

UPDATE

The full judgment (I was relying on the press release) reads:

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”.

P.P.P.S

The Court also observed that 

the country of origin or the place of provenance of a foodstuff must...be indicated where failure to indicate this might mislead consumers into believing that that foodstuff has a country of origin or a place of provenance different from its true country of origin or place of provenance. In addition, it noted that, where the origin or provenance is indicated on a foodstuff, it must not be deceptive.

and

For products from the West Bank or the Golan Heights that originate from settlements, an indication limited to “product from the Golan Heights” or “product from the West Bank” would not be acceptable. Even if they would designate the wider area or territory from which the product originates, the omission of the additional geographical information that the product comes from Israeli settlements would mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product. In such cases the expression “Israeli settlement” or equivalent needs to be added, in brackets, for example. Therefore, expressions such as “product from the Golan Heights (Israeli settlement)” or “product from the West Bank (Israeli settlement)” could be used.’

If so, how can anything produced by Arabs in the same territory be labled "Made in Palestine"? The Court suggests the Shiloh Winery located 1.5 kilometers from Turmos Aya are in two different geographical provenances?

Much more deceptive as Palestine doesn't actually exist. 

^

A Matter of Origin

The EU guidelines on wine seem to inist on a "region" as the geographical identification unit as to where a product is made where as where the grapes are grown is another matter: 

"For most products, at least one of the stages of distillation or preparation takes place in the region. However, raw products do not need to come from the region". 

You might then ask why then does the EU insist on "Palestine" when "Judea & Samaria", regions, would do?

Well, it doesn't actually.

But in the first instance, those guidelines above refer solely to EU countries.  

In other words, what is good for the EU is not good for other countries.

The official EU position as regards Israel, however, as clarified for me from an official spokesperson, is this

The indication of origin of products from territories occupied by Israel is a technical consumer protection issue, based on the EU recognising Israel within its 1967 border. Goods of origin from these territories, as  other goods for import into the EU, need to be correctly labelled so that consumers in the EU have full clarity where the products come from.  

The EU does not support any elements of the so-called ‘BDS’ approach (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israel, and hence also not the boycott of products from Israeli settlements.  

An Interpretative Notice of the European Commission was issued in November 2015 and it provides some clarity on the existing EU rules. The main purpose is to be helpful to a consumer in that an improper labeling would "mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product".  It demands that the mandatory indication of origin be "correct and not misleading".  As they note

"Made in Israel" used for the products coming from Israeli settlements would mislead the consumer and therefore is inconsistent with existing EU legislation.

And further,

'product from Israel' should not be used for products from the Golan Heights or the West Bank (including East Jerusalem). For products from West Bank or the Golan Heights that originate from settlements, an indication limited to 'product from Golan Heights' or 'product from West Bank' would not be acceptable. In such cases the expression 'Israeli settlement' or equivalent needs to be added

Before we deal with why that instruction is in place, one more element need be emphasized. The EU asserts that the geographical area of origin must be "internationally recognised" and for the EU, Israel was and continues to be internationally recognized as defined by its "pre-1967 borders' so

In line with UNSC resolution 2334 of 2016, the EU considers Israeli settlements in occupied territories as illegal under international law.

Let's deconstruct this.

In the first instance, we need be clear there were no "borders" prior to 1967. They were, as defined in an internationally recognized Armistice Agreement and those lines were specifically categorized in Article II that being demarcated,

no military or political advantage should be gained

Furthermore there,

no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question

In other words, Israel and Jordan could both put forward territorial claims beyond those lines. Indeed,

The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move

Nothing political but rather a simple marking at which point the military forces had stopped operations.

Moreover, those lines were temporary in the extreme, with no permanancy as per

Article XII 3 which reads

The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than articles I and III, at any time.

Jordan, invading Israel in June 1967, effectively put an end to the legitimacy of those lines.

To sanctify, as it were, the "pre-1967 borders" is an act of nonsense.

Now, between you and me, everyone knows Israel has extended its administrative rule to those regions of the Land of Israel that were under British Mandate rule until 1948, a rule quite legal and internationally recognized. That is the meaning of "belligerent occupation", that it si the rrsult of military engagement. Israel, in an act of self-defense, thwarted the intentions of the invaders and assumed administrationn over Judea and Samaria, as well as Gaza.

Those regions were geographically part of the area of 'historic Palestine' the League of nations awarded to the Jewish people to, among other purposes:

encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands

From 1922 until 1967, no recognized country or state legally ruled those areas except the Mandate. In Hebrew, the Mandate was translated as "Land of Israel". Jordan was an illegal occupier. 

All this leaves us with a simple solution for the requirement of the EU to note the origin of the product: the Land of Israel.

^

Counter-Labeling Ideas Wanted

I think we could come up with ideas to counter the EU labeling campaign (although I think it might work in our favor: people will know where to find the better, healthier products).

How about labeling every street corner in Europe where a Jew was struck by an anti-Semite in the past 1000 years?

Anyone have other ideas?

^

Is The EU "Jewish Challenged"?

From the EU document on the five 'red lines' Israel needs to back away from:-

Dear EU, if anyone is challenging, the Muslims who attempt to interfere with, prevent, disrupt and otherwise badger the freedom of access and worship of non-Muslims to their holy site are those who are so challenging.

Is the EU "Jewish challenged"?

^

EU Opposes Compromise and Coexistence

Haaretz's Amira Hass is reporting:

EU diplomats warn of regional conflagration over Temple Mount

You should know that anti-YESHA jounralists feed material and conceptualizations to their fellow foreign media journalists, are invited to present to the EU, then gey extra chummy with these younger EU people who then feed it all up the cycle, then our own publish and thus assure that the story - and its desired conclusion - keeps moving along.

The news:

A March 18 internal report to Brussels raises caution around the changing status quo at the holy site and the growing tension triggered by the demands of right-wing Jewish groups.

It states:

“There remains a significant risk that incidents at this highly sensitive site, or perceived threats to the status quo, may spark extreme reactions locally as well as across the Arab and Muslim world, and have the potential to derail the peace negotiations,” according to the report, which was obtained by Haaretz.

"Obtained"?

It was handed over to them to generate media noise.

...The EU delegates also sound the alarm about the idea of dividing the Temple Mount and allocating separate prayer times for each religion, as was done at Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs, known by Muslims as the Ibrahimi Mosque.

"Alarm"?  Why warn?  What's wrong with coexistence?  Sharing?

And why should that be a problem for the EU that they should oppose it?  Why get involved?  Does the EU not want mutual respect, religious freedom, justice?

One positive note:

The report contains an implicit criticism of the tendency by Muslim religious authorities and Palestinian politicians to deny the historic affiliation Jews have to the Temple Mount.

"Tendency"?  The Waqf is an institution of implacable fanaticism, extreme intolerance as well as anti-Semitism and disinventivity:

PA religious leaders: Jews must not pray at Western Wall

The Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash and the former Chief Justice of the PA's Religious Court both recently declared that the PA's Islamic belief and political position is that Jews are prohibited from praying at the Western Wall of the Temple Mount. Palestinian Media Watch has documented that the PA denies Israel's history and rights in Jerusalem, but these statements by top religious leaders go even further.  The PA claims that the area of the Muslim holy site, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, includes not only the mosque itself, but extends over the entire Temple Mount and includes Judaism's holy site - the Western Wall.

But there's this, too:

The report makes the same recommendations it has made in previous years...It also urges close supervision over the Temple Mount...

Who/what is the EU to make recommendations? 

Mr. Netanyahu?  Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu?  Can we hear from you? Or even from the Foreign Minister.  Even the Minister for Religious Services.  A Chief Rabbi, or two.

Hello?

^

Tracing Back the EU's Policy

As the EU makes clear:-

The purpose of these guidelines is to make a distinction between the State of Israel and the occupied territories when it comes to EU support.

We can trace this back a bit.

In 1980, at Venice, there was this European-initiated move:

The nine member states of the European Economic Community (EEC) will extend their Middle East initiative by submitting a draft resolution to the United Nations General Assembly based on their Venice declaration of June 30 which stated that the Palestinians and the Palestine Liberation Organization must be associated with the Mideast peace process.

The three crucial points of that Declaration were:

6. A just solution must finally be found to the Palestinian problem, which is not simply one of refugees. The Palestinian people, which is conscious of existing as such, must be placed in a position, by an appropriate process defined within the framework of the comprehensive peace settlement, to exercise fully its right to self-determination.

In other words, up until then, it was not fully recognized nor accepted that the Arabs of the former Mandate of Palestine area were engaged specifically in a "nationalist struggle". Do not forget, the UN's 242 spoke of "states" [i.e., respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area...achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;...guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area] and 'Palestine' wasn't a state (nor ever was in history).

8. The Nine recognise the special importance of the role played by the question of Jerusalem for all the parties concerned. The Nine stress that they will not accept any unilateral initiative designed to change the status of Jerusalem and that any agreement on the city's status should guarantee freedom of access for everyone to the Holy Places.

In other words, Israel's claim to a united Jerusalem was rejected.

9. The Nine stress the need for Israel to put an end to the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967, as it has done for part of Sinai.

The language does nod to full withdrawal to 1967 since the Sinai Peninsula was surrendered in toto even if zoned to Egypt.


EOZ suggests that the EU rather recently used the phrase "1967 borders":

I noted that the official EU guidelines that were much discussed since yesterday incorrectly used the phrase "1967 borders" to refer to the 1949 armistice lines; lines that were never national borders and never meant to be national borders.  I just did a quick look through official EU documents and the earliest mention I can find of  the phrase "1967 borders" is this 2002 document, which was quickly followed by a host of others with the same wrong formulation.  It is astonishing that Israel apparently never pushed back on the EU to change that incorrect language.

And two days later, in reaction to that Declaration, the Israeli cabinet stated :

"Nothing will remain of the Venice decision but a bitter memory. The decision calls on us and other nations to bring into the peace process that Arab SS which calls itself 'the Palestine Liberation Organisation'... all men of goodwill in Europe, all men who revere liberty, will see this document as another Munich-like capitulation to totalitarian blackmail and a spur to all those seeking to undermine the Camp David Accords and derail the peace process in the Middle East."

There was an earlier formulation in 1977:

and again, while "borders" as a distinct term is not mentioned, as neither in the 1979 declaration, the intent is clear.  And as that 1979 document clarified:

The Nine deplore any action or declaration that might constitute an obstacle to the quest for peace. In particular, they consider that certain positions adopted by the Israeli Government and certain declarations it has made are of such a nature as to represent an obstacle to the search for such an over-all settlement. This is particularly the case for:

- Israel’s claim of ultimate sovereignty over the occupied territories, a claim incompatible with resolution 242 (1967) which lays down the principle that the acquisition of territories by force is inadmissible...

Unfortunately, as it is wrong.


____________

UPDATE

...Indeed, the Europeans’ own conduct proves that this is not about implementing international law. Many countries in the region occupy foreign territory and even establish settlements there. The most obvious example is Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus; others include Morocco’s subjugation of Western Sahara, fellow Middle East Quarter member Russia’s recent conquest of parts of Georgia, and Armenia’s in Azerbaijan. In none of these cases has the EU promulgated such guidelines – even when it concerns the ongoing Turkish settlement enterprise in the territory of Europe itself. So whatever “law” the EU thinks mandates the Israel rules, it is clearly a law for one nation only.

 
Moreover, the guidelines contain a massive exception that undermine the notion that this about international law rather than EU foreign policy. Article 15 exempts groups that “promot[e] the Middle East peace process in line with EU policy.” Either the Geneva Conventions and related rules prevent Israelis from having anything to do with the West Bank or they do not – but they certainly do not contain a “things the EU likes” exception. The exemption reveals the true purpose of the rules: to promote European foreign policy, not the vindicate international law. Indeed, law is about applying general rules equal to various cases, regardless of one’s sympathies: the unique focus on the Jewish State is the opposite of lawful.

That was Eugene Kontorovich.



^


 

Graphic Zionism on the New EU Directive

.
My previous post.

On the directive.

Some good ideas. 

Who will be economically hurt. 


"Settlements" is a code word for Jerusalem by Caroline Glick 

The baseless hatred of the EU towards Israel by Melanie Phillips

^

EU Is So Hypocritically Biased

What follows this is going around (with thanks to friends) in response to the EU decision on which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented:

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this afternoon (Tuesday, 16 July 2013), in his Jerusalem office, held consultations with Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett and Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin in wake of the intention to add conditions to contacts between the EU and the State of Israel in the future.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "I would expect those who truly want peace and stability in the region would discuss this issue after solving more urgent regional problems such as the civil war in Syria or Iran's race to achieve nuclear weapons. As the Prime Minister of Israel, I will not allow the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria, on the Golan Heights and in Jerusalem, our united capital, to be harmed. We will not accept any outside diktat about our borders. This issue will be decided only in direct negotiations between the sides."

The decision:

"The European Union has issued a binding directive to the 28 member states forbidding any funding, cooperation, awarding of scholarships, research funds or prizes to institutions or people residing in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights."

Here:

1.       Does the latest European initiative mean that the EU has abandoned, officially or de facto, the Middle East Quartet effort?  Borders were supposed to be a “final status” issue under the Quartet Roadmap, and last we heard—granted, it’s been a couple of years—Tony Blair, the Quartet envoy, was seeking proposals for border arrangements.  Has the EU now explicitly abandoned this effort and unilaterally determined the borders of Israel?

2.       According to the report, a Jew living in Hebron is not eligible for some prize or scholarship, but an Arab living in Hebron is eligible.  Is this sort of antisemitic discrimination legal under the EU and individual countries’ laws?

3.       Is an Arab-owned organization or entity in the West Bank eligible for EU cooperation or funding?  How about a Jewish-owned organization that employs non-Jews?  An entity owned by both Jews and non-Jews?  What exactly defines an organization or entity as Jewish or non-Jewish, or as eligible or not eligible?  Its address?  The ethnicity or religion of its owners, managers, or employees?

4.       Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with Turkey, regarding Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus—which the EU also doesn’t recognize?  Or do EU contracts specify sovereign borders only for Israel?  If the latter, what is the legal or moral basis for the distinction or discrimination between the two?

5.       Does this new EU directive apply funding for all organizations operating in the West Bank, including those—like B’Tselem—that oppose the Israeli occupation and work to change or undermine Israeli government policies—in accordance with EU policies?   Is it what the American legal system calls a “viewpoint neutral” policy, or one that actively seeks to endorse one specific political position and censor another—within a (democratic) third country?

(Can anyone press EU officials to clarify whether the new restrictions apply to territory or to the ethnic/national/religious identity of the people with whom the EU and its member countries are willing to work?  And how the new rules relate to European anti-discrimination laws?  See, for example, EU Directive 2000/43/EC, “Equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,” and the 2008 Framework Strategy for “Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities for All” which explicitly references “the promotion of non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all in the context of enlargement and in relations with third countries.”)

Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with Morocco, regarding Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara? Or do EU contracts specify sovereign borders only for Israel?

Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with Russia, regarding Russia’s occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Or do EU contracts specify borders only for Israel?

Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with China, regarding China’s occupation of Tibet and Aksai Chin? Or do EU contracts specify borders only for Israel?

Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with India, regarding India’s occupation of Arnuchal Pradesh and Kashmir? Or do EU contracts specify borders only for Israel?

Does the EU have a similar directive for agreements with Armenia, regarding Armenia’s occupation of Nagorno Karabach? Or do EU contracts specify borders only for Israel?

There are hundreds of areas in the world whose sovereignty is disputed.


================

Paz Tower 15th - 16th floors
5-7 Shoham Street
Ramat Gan - P.O.Box 3513

Telephone: (972) 03-6137799
Fax: (972) 03-6137770
E-mail: [email protected]

^

EU Ashton Supports Jewish Prayer on the Temple Mount

We read:

 

Brussels, 10 May 2013

A 249/12

Statement by the spokesperson of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on recent developments in

East Jerusalem and the West Bank 

 

The spokesperson of Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and security Policy and Vice President of the Commission, issued the following statement today: 

 

“The High Representative is concerned by developments over the past week in East Jerusalem. It is important that those concerned exercise maximum restraint and refrain from any actions which could drive the sides to the conflict further apart. 

 

The High Representative is disturbed by recent events in East Jerusalem such as those that took place at Orthodox Easter, the unrest in the area of the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount and the temporary detention of the Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine on Wednesday. It is essential that access to the holy sites in Jerusalem for peaceful worship for all denominations is fully respected...

In my reading, the "unrest in the area of the Temple Mount" was certainly unruly and even violent attempts by Muslims, either individually or encouraged by Waqf officials, including the Mufti, to not only prevent "peaceful worship" by Jews but to cause bodily harm to them.

Thank you Lady Ashton.

____________

P.S.

Even Ma'an knows:

"The High Representative is concerned by developments over the past week in East Jerusalem and the West Bank which have increased tensions on the ground and risk undermining current efforts to re-launch peace talks," the statement added.

All worshipers should have access to holy sites in Jerusalem, she said.

^

What Are The "Basic Needs of the Palestinian Population"?

I received a copy of this press release, soon to be uploaded here, in the meantime, here:

Press Release
PR/14/2013
Jerusalem

06 May 2013

The EU contributes €20 million to the Palestinian Authority's April salaries and pensions

Today the European Union has contributed approximately €20 million to the payment of salaries and pensions for March of nearly 76,000 Palestinian civil servants and pensioners in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This contribution, which is channelled through the PEGASE[1] mechanism, is funded by the European Commission (around €19.3 million) and the Government of Luxembourg (€0.7 million)

"The European Union continues to support the Palestinian Authority, month by month, to meet the basic needs of the Palestinian population. Our contribution to the payment of salaries and pensions is one of the most tangible ways to help ensure delivery of public services", said the EU Representative Mr. John Gatt-Rutter. "The EU's direct financial support to the Palestinian Authority is not merely a cash-injection. Taken together with our institution-building programmes our efforts are designed to achieve real reforms on the ground, added the EU Representative.

Background

Most of the European Union's assistance to the Palestinian Authority is channelled through PEGASE, the financial mechanism launched in 2008 to support the PA Reform and Development Plan (2008-2010) and the subsequent PA Palestinian National Plan (2011-2013). As well as helping to meet a substantial proportion of its running costs, European funds support major reform and development programmes in key ministries, to help prepare the PA for statehood in line with the state-building plan put forward by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in August 2009. Since February 2008, around €1.47 billion have been disbursed through the PEGASE Direct Financial Support programmes. In addition, the EU has provided assistance to the Palestinian people through UNRWA and a wide range of cooperation projects.


[1] Mécanisme Palestino-Européen de Gestion de l'Aide Socio-Economique (PEGASE)

The Office of the European Union Representative.

And last month, there was this:

Press Release - PR/12/2013

Jerusalem
23 APRIL 2013
 
The EU supports the 10th payment under the PA's "Private Sector Reconstruction in Gaza" programme

The European Union contributed today c.€1.6 million (c.US$2.0 million) to the tenth payment under the Palestinian Authority's "Private Sector Reconstruction in Gaza" (PSRG) programme. The programme, which was the first large-scale initiative in support of the private sector in Gaza after "Operation Cast Lead", has played an important part in its recovery. This contribution is being channelled through PEGASE [1], the European Union's mechanism for support to the Palestinians.

Do you think there is real reform in the PA?

Government?  Civic society?

No incitement?  No terror?  Peace Education?

What would do with all that money? 

And check this:

European bureaucrats keep pouring cash into the dark recesses of the PA, while Palestinian Arab concerns are ignored 

(k/t=MP)



^

Thank You, EU

What can I say but "thank you, EU".

First, for again proving its malicious bias.

Second, for giving Israel the idea and, better, the rationale, to come down harder on the internationalists that block our roads, etc.

That's from reading this:

The European Union is recommending a blacklist of "known violent settlers" who will be blocked from entering EU member states, a Western diplomat told Haaretz...[after] the consuls general of the EU countries in East Jerusalem and Ramallah wrote a report dealing with settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, especially the incidents the settlers refer to as "price tag" revenge attacks.The report recommended that EU headquarters in Brussels draw up a blacklist of settlers who would be forbidden entry into the 27 EU states.

...This document, which was obtained by Haaretz, says most of the violent incidents perpetrated by settlers "appear to be part of a pattern of coercion aimed at forcing Palestinian communities in Area C to leave with a view to expanding settlements or outposts." The document also states that the "political strength of the settler movement has grown" and "the Israeli authorities have generally not taken firm action against outposts [that are] also illegal under Israeli law." Given that, it states, a "culture of impunity is which the violence continues" has developed.

...The United Nations "considers settler violence as the biggest security threat to its personnel in the West Bank," the document states. 

 And there's this:-

Several of the committee experts visited the West Bank and Israel last week. A Foreign Ministry source said the visit "was totally unbalanced. Unfortunately, this is typical of some of the European clerical staff."
According to the source, the European diplomats devoted most of their time to visiting the Palestinian Authority areas, and made several tours of the region accompanied solely by Palestinian officials. The Foreign Ministry was infuriated when told of the document's contents, with officials saying that Israel had had no inkling that EU institutions were preparing any such blacklist. "It's hard to respond to a paper we haven't seen," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. "As for the inflammatory proposal to refuse to admit what they call 'known violent settlers' because Israel hasn't put them on trial, there's an internal contradiction there. How will a person be defined as a 'violent settler' if he hasn't been convicted? And if he's been convicted, then Israel has brought him to justice. It seems as if in their eagerness to suggest tough measures, these esteemed experts neglected simple logic."

Of course, if the EU reps would spend more time with people in the communities of Yesha, acting just a bit more objectively, maybe they would learn something.

^

Deep? How Deep?

I received this notice (via  Missing Peace):

EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 3 March 2012
A 98/12

Statement by the Spokesperson of the High Representative Catherine Ashton on the closure of two Palestinian television stations

The spokesperson of Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the Commission, issued the following statement today:

“The High Representative is deeply concerned by the incursion into Ramallah by Israeli security forces to seize equipment from the Palestinian television stations, Wattan TV and Al Quds Educational TV...

I was just wondering, what would be an Israeli action that would cause the Lady to be "very deeply concerned" or on the othe rhand, "concerned".

And for that matter, what about "bothered"? "distressed"? "upset"?

Is there a scale of diplomatic expressions and terms? Well, besides this.

^

Maybe We Should Reverse Ashton's Appointment?

The lady hath spoken:

EU Demands Reversal Of Israeli Settlement Approvals

European Union Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton has called upon the Israeli government to reverse its decision granting approval for new constructions in Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

"The High Representative is deeply concerned by the approval on 22 February by the Israeli Civil Administration of new construction in the settlements of Shvut Rachel and Shilo as well as the retrospective approval granted for housing units already built," Ashton's spokesperson said in a statement on Wednesday.

"Settlements are illegal under international law. In addition the Quartet Roadmap states that Israel should not only freeze all settlement activity, but also dismantle those settlements erected since March 2001," the statement added.

Silly cow.

^

EU Redefines "Occupation"

Could it be that from "Occupation I", that is, Israel administration of Judea and Samaria, the EU is moving on to an "Occupation II", pre-Green Line Israel?

Consider this:

Secret EU paper aims to tackle Israel's treatment of Arab minority

The paper approves a move in which the EU would consider Israel's treatment of its Arab population a 'core issue', and not second tier to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As Haaretz notes:

This is an unprecedented document in that it deals with internal Israeli issues. According to European diplomats and senior Foreign Ministry officials, it was written and sent to EU headquarters in Brussels behind the back of the Israeli government.

The suggestion in that report, initiated by the UK, include

that the EU file an official protest every time a bill discriminating against Arabs passes a second reading in the Knesset, and that the EU ensure that all Arab towns have completed urban plans, "with each member state potentially 'adopting' a municipality to this end."

The idea at the basis of this approach is that

"The stalemate in the peace process, and the continuing occupation, inevitably has an impact on the identification of Israeli Arabs with Israel," the document states. "It will be more difficult for Israeli Arabs to be wholly at ease with their identity while the conflict with the Palestinians continues...We should emphasize that addressing inequality within Israel is integral to Israel's long-term stability,"

As was pointed out to me, this next section is most dangerous in that it seeks to undermine a UN recommendation, and previous international legal decisions to define Israel as a "Jewish state":-

"We do not believe that recognition of Israel as a Jewish State should detract in any way from the vision of equality for all its citizens enshrined in its founding documents," the report says.

"It is in the interests of all Israelis to demonstrate that Israel is not only Jewish and democratic, but tolerant and inclusive, and that these are patriotic values. We believe in common with most Israelis that Israeli nationality is an inclusive concept which can accommodate equally those of other faiths and ethnic origins."

"Equality" was not part of our founding documents. The League of Nations Mandate decision reads in its relevant sections on this matter:

it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

and

safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

and

The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine.

and

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as wen as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights. Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed.

In Article 11, there is this:

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration.

"Equality" is mentioned as regards matters of commerce and archaeological excavations:

The Mandatory shall adhere on behalf of the Administration of Palestine to any general international conventions already existing, or which may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations, respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial equality...

...This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological research to the nations of all States Members of the League of Nations.

The EU response was:

"This report was prepared to stimulate thinking at the EU level on how the EU might engage constructively with governmental and non-governmental interlocutors in Israel with respect to an issue that has been identified in the EU –Israel Action Plan as a shared value, namely to 'promote and protect rights of minorities, including enhancing political, economic, social and cultural opportunities for all citizens and lawful residents,'"

This is nothing if not interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state that possesses an independent judiciary, democratic change of government through regular elections, open organizational affiliaition, right of free expression and assembly, etc.

EU could do better to learn from Israel and, of course, act they way they want Israel to do in their own countries.

^

The EU Meets The National-Religious Press

Having just finished a media event of a Press lunch with Ambassador Andrew Standley, Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the State of Israel, at the King David Hotel

(that's the Ambassador at the right):

and finding him to be someone who acknowledges that there can be problems with EU policies and exhibiting full comprehension of Israel's public opinion, including that populace that sees the territories of Judea and Samaria as part of the Jewish national home, while disagreeing with it, it was disappointing to read this:-

European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton said on Wednesday that she was "deeply disappointed" by Israel's approval of new settlement building in East Jerusalem. "The actions taken by the Israeli Government contravene repeated and urgent calls by the international community, including the Quartet, and run counter to achieving a peaceful solution that will preserve Israel’s security and realize the Palestinians’ right to statehood," Ashton said in a statement released on Wednesday...

Ashton spoke directly about the plan, saying that it "may further damage an already fragile political environment." "I reiterate that the EU considers that settlement activities in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law, undermine trust between the parties and constitute an obstacle to peace," Ashton said.

Pressed as to whether the EU is policy-oriented or issues-oriented, he responded to my question that ineed, all groups engaged in civic society activities in the fields of democracy, human rights and other such concerns should be able to apply for funding from the EU as I had pointed out that if peace and coexistence is to be achieved, the reality must be acknowledge and that includes the presence of over 300,000 Jewish residents in the area. I think I can say that I was satisfied to find a partner in dialogue as we continued to deal with matters of both pragmatic and theoretical ramifications. I hope the Amb.assador came awy more knowledgeable and with a further perspective.

One other answer of his to a question of mine was that, in seeking parallel or comparative modus of operation in Israel, where NGOs of the more radical persuasion are funded, leading many to believe this is but a subversiveoperation that undermines Israel's democratic cboices of government, Standley said that, for exemple, in the UNited States groups opposed to the death penalty receive EU financial assistance despite the law in many American states.

Additional photos:

(Eve Harow with David Kriss, Press & Information manager)

(the Ambassador with Elazar Roseberger of the Radio Moreshet)

(Sofia Ron-Moriyah (l.) of Makor Rishon with Victoria Martynov (r.) of the EU Israel Delegation staff)

And yes, the repast was excellent with both white and red wines.

The menu:

^

Absurd is not the word

Excerpts from Nick Cohen's Observer piece:-

...Far from being a cause of the revolution, antagonism to Israel everywhere served the interests of oppressors...The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the forgery the far-right wing of the decaying tsarist regime...denounces human rights and democracy as facades behind which the secret Jewish rulers of the world manipulated gullible gentiles.

Syrian Ba'athists, Hamas, the Saudi monarchy and Gaddafi eagerly promoted the Protocols...Europe's amnesia about how tyranny operated in our continent explains why the Libyan revolution is embarrassing a rich collection of dupes and scoundrels who were willing to laugh along with Gaddafi. His contacts in Britain were once confined to the truly lunatic fringe. He supplied arms to the IRA, funded the Workers' Revolutionary Party, Vanessa Redgrave's nasty Trotskyist sect, and entertained Nick Griffin and other neo-Nazis. We should not forget them when the time comes to settle accounts. But when Tony Blair, who was so eloquent in denouncing the genocides of Saddam, staged a reconciliation with Gaddafi after 9/11, his friendship opened the way for the British establishment to embrace the dictatorship...British academics who were happy to accept his largesse...

...The European Union, which did so much to export democracy and the rule of law to former communist dictatorships of eastern Europe, has played a miserable role in the Middle East. It pours in aid but never demands democratisation or restrictions on police powers in return. That will have to change if the promise of the past month is to be realised. If it is to help with democracy-building, Europe will need to remind itself as much as the recipients of its money that you can never build free societies on the racist conspiracy theories of the Nazis and the tsars. They are and always have been the tunes that tyrants sing.

^

Ew, EU, Part Two

Yesterday, I blogged about the EU Heads of Mission (HoM) Statement.  There I touched on the operational interventionist actions items in its conclusions section.  I refered to the document as "a declaration of diplomatic war against Israel".  And I provided information that could be useful for a non-violent direct action campaign.

In this post, I will deal with some of the elements in the text of the document (in italics), which can be found here.  And I will do so as they appear in the document. What follows are my comments and reflections marked by Page and Paragraph.

*   *   *

Page 1: "Considering the developments in East Jerusalem and in particular the progressive separation of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank" (Cover Note)

Given that Jerusalem's Old City was separated from Israel's citizens and essentially all Jews from across the world for 19 years with a presence of European diplomats there all that time, there's no small measure of chutzpah in this statement.  Moreover, the city will not be separated from any religious pilgrim, Muslim or Christian, and has been open more than at any other time in history.  Even if the Arabs of the former Mandate of Palestine territory will achieve some sort of political framework, will then Jerusalem be separated from Israel?  Of course, my outlook will assure that Jerusalem will not be separated from Judea and Samaria in that all the area between the sea and the river will be under Israeli sovereignty.

Page 1: "in accordance with international law, that the acquisition of territory by force or the threat of the use of force is inadmissible". (Cover Note)

Well, if that really is an inadmissable action, there are many other places where it would be much more pressing to deal with the issues.  Like the Karabakh conflict.  As explained, that phrase only applies to an offensive war, not a defensive one as the 1967 war was.  Further to that, "territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word “unlawful” is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign."

Page 1: "Israel has left Palestinian neighbourhoods ever more isolated". (1)

They are not isolated.  There is freedom of movement.  If there is isolation, it is the lot of the Jewish families who require 24-hour protection from terror attacks and armed guards to take children to school due to threats of violence.  Do the HoMs protect the rights of Jewish children?

Page 2: "The interest of safeguarding the religious, historical and symbolic values of Jerusalem goes beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." (2)

It surely does. There are Jewish concerns and interests. Are they on the agenda of the HoMs? Do they talk to Jews? Or are they discriminatory? Do they negate the Jews simply by rewferring to them throughout the document as "settlers"?

Page 2: "UNSC Resolution 478 in which the Security Council decided not to recognise this Basic Law and other actions that “seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem”. The resolution also calls upon all UN Members that had established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem “to withdraw such missions from the Holy city”. (3)
 
Well, have they withdrawn? Or have they stayed in the eastern section only as if there are two cities? As if it is another city somehow that doesn't belong to its other half?

Page 2: "the EU will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties" (6)
 
To repeat, for 19 years they did. And when Israel in 1949 declared its full sovereignty over the western section, that part not conquered and occupied illegally by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which then illegally annexed it, not a peep was heard.

Page 2: "In East Jerusalem 35 percent of the land has been expropriated for “state land”. Only citizens of Israel or those legally entitled to claim Israeli citizenship (i.e. Jewish) can buy property built on state land." (7)
 
"For state land"? It is state land. Land that does not belong to private individuals or institutions. And Arabs are Israeli citizens as well, by the way.

Page 3: "the Palestinian neighbourhoods of Silwan, Ras al-Amud, At-Tur, Wadi al-Joz and Sheikh Jarrah and contains the majority of the historical and holy sites of Jerusalem. These are Palestinian residential areas" (10)
 
They also were Jewish residential areas until Jews were expelled and refused their own right of return. And those Arab neighborhoods are all situated in historical Jewish neighborhoods before Romans, Crusaders, Muslims and Turks conquered them. Learn history dear diplomats.

Page 3: "cut off the territorial contiguity between the Palestinian neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem and the Old City and separate the Muslim and Christian holy places from the rest of East Jerusalem." (11)
 
Again, repeating worthless unfactual claims and ignoring Jewish holy places.

Page 3: "under Israeli law Palestinians are precluded from reclaiming pre-1948 property in Israel or in West Jerusalem" (12)
 
Those who started the war in 1947 in violation of a UN recommendation, and who for the previous three decades attempted to prevent the League of Nations decision from being realised, surely can have no claim for what they lost due to their aggression.

Page 4: "In 2008, the police headquarters of “Judea and Samaria” moved to E1" (19)

Neat that, placing the genuine historic and geographical names in quotations marks. So, for me, it will be "West Bank".

Page 4: "The use of archaeology as a politico-ideological tool in the Wadi Hilweh area just south of the Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif (often referred to as the “City of David” area) is a source of increasing concern."  (20)

If there is any exploitation of tools, this is a prime example.  A "Wadi Hilweh" supplants the true historical geography!  And "referred to" as regards the City of David?
 
Page 5: "effectively disenfranchising Arab/Muslim claims of historic-archaeological ties to the very same place." (22)

See above.  The same twisted narrative.
 
Page 9: "Developments at the Haram al-Sharif, or Temple Mount, are significant in several respects" (57)
 
In the three paragraphs dealing with the Temple Mount (the term Haram Al-Sharif always precedes the Jewish name, its original name), there is no mention of the damage and injury caused by Arabs and Muslim bodies to Jewish historical artifacts and archaelogical remains, done with the full intent of erasing any Jewish identification with the site, obliterately Jewish heritage claims.  Moreover, the esteemed diplomats do not mention the restrictions the Israel governments have applied on Jewish prayer or any other specific Jewish display towards the Temple Mount.  The Jewish side doesn't exist and merits no concern by these representatives of foreign governments.

This is not a comprehensive point-by-point refutation but represents the veil of ignorance, the willingness to blindly accept Arab/Muslim deceits and prevarications and the self-dissemblance they permit themselves while they degrade Jewish nationalism and historical rights.

Woe to European civilization.

^