Israel Matzav

'Most pro-Israel administration evah' issues executive order calling for labeling of 'West Bank' products

Greetings to all of you from Boston.

Just last night, we had reports of a 'thaw' in Israel's relations with the 'most pro-Israel administration evah.'

Obama speaks at the #Israel Embassy amid a thaw in relations between U.S. and Israel https://t.co/Vg8oqRhAT2 (@Kevinliptakcnn in @CNN)

— William Daroff (@Daroff) January 28, 2016

I'm sorry to report that the 'thaw' has once again become a freeze. The Obama administration has issued an executive order calling for the labeling of products made in the West Bank Judea and Samaria as not having been made in Israel.

The Jan. 23 directive states that it is “not acceptable” to label goods coming from Israeli companies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as having been produced in “Israel.”

The order comes amid an effort by the European Union to label Israeli-made goods, a move the Israeli government called anti-Israel and that prominent anti-Semitism watchdog groups have condemned as among the worst incidents of anti-Semitism in 2015.

This is a shift from the administration’s previous position. A State Department spokesman told reporters in November that such labeling could be perceived as “a step on the way to a boycott” and said boycotts would be opposed by the administration.

But earlier this month, senior Obama administration officials defended the EU’s move and reaffirmed its position against “Israeli settlement activity.”

The new guidance references a decades-old administrative directive that sought to promote the import of Palestinian goods produced in the West Bank. The Obama administration is facing criticism for reinterpreting it and enforcing it to punish Israeli businesses.

The new memo, issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is meant to “provide guidance to the trade community regarding the country of origin marking requirements for goods that are manufactured in the West Bank.”

Good produced in these areas are not to be labeled “with the words ‘Israel,’” according to the memo, which warns that inappropriate labeling will subject the products to “enforcement action” by Customs and Border Protection.

“Goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza Strip shall be marked as originating from ‘West Bank,’ ‘Gaza,’ ‘Gaza Strip,’ ‘West Bank/Gaza,’ ‘West Bank/Gaza Strip,’ ‘West Bank and Gaza,’ or ‘West Bank and Gaza Strip,’” according to the directive.

“It is not acceptable to mark the aforementioned goods with the words ‘Israel,’’ ‘Made in Israel,’ ‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’ or any variation thereof,” it states.

Goods that are erroneously marked as products of Israel will be subject to an enforcement action carried out by U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” the memo states. “Goods entering the United States must conform to the U.S. marking statute and regulations promulgated thereunder.”

The Obama administration has reacted by claiming that nothing has changed.

A State Department official who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on Thursday said that the department is aware of the new memo but does not view it as a shift in longstanding policy.

“We are aware that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection re-issued guidance on their marking requirements,” the official said. “There has been no change in policy or in our approach to enforcement of marking requirements.”

The latest guidance stands as a “restatement of previous requirements,” the official added. “CBP has made clear that it in no way supersedes prior rulings or regulations, nor does it impose additional requirements with respect to merchandise imported from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, or Israel.”

“Longstanding U.S. guidelines, dating to 1995, on country of origin product marking requires that products produced in the West Bank be marked as products of the West Bank, and products of Israel be marked as products of Israel,” the official explained.

Except that for 20 years, no one bothered to label products that way and no one noticed.

#ThanksObama

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, BDS, Obama's obsession with Israel, pro-Israel, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:00 AM 5 comments

Lesson from the Paris terror attacks: Europe needs to join forces with Israel

Greetings from somewhere over eastern Kentucky - my next stop (which is not my final stop today) is Dallas, Texas.

David Harris of the AJC (not necessarily a source from which I would expect it) has some very wise advice for Europe.

And finally, when will Europe finally wake up and realize that democratic Israel is part of the solution, not the problem?

At the end of the day, the terrorism faced by France - or Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, the U.K., etc. - is a kissing cousin of that confronted by Israel. Some European leaders go to great lengths to deny that obvious truth, seeking instead to draw distinctions that are, in fact, largely non-existent, or suggesting that Israel somehow "deserves" what it gets, while implying that Europe does not.

Let's get real.

The authors of 9/11 detested who and what America is. They didn't give a darn what political party was in power, because they attacked the Twin Towers when Clinton was president and again when Bush was in the Oval Office.

The same with Europe. The target is Europe's value system - its democracy, openness, freedom, and secularism.

And, yes, the same with Israel. The terrorists of Hamas (with which the Palestinian Authority made a pact), Iranian-backed Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and ISIS don't want Israel to exist, period. They're not interested in who's in power in Jerusalem or how to get to a two-state accord, but rather establishing their rule over the entire land.

Read the whole thing.

One would hope that this would at least awaken Europe enough to get them to cancel the 'settlement product' labeling. Don't hold your breath. It won't. Anti-Semitism trumps all.

Labels: 9/11, BDS, Eurabia, Europe, European anti-Semitism, Islamic terrorism, Jew hatred, Paris, Paris terror attacks, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:21 PM 1 comments

The Obama-Kerry State Department comes out in favor of BDS

Read the statement in the tweet below, and it becomes quite clear that the Obama administration has come out in favor of boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning Israel.

Obama admin opposes "conflation of Israel and 'Israeli-controlled territories' in #TPA bill, per @statedeptspox pic.twitter.com/zU4OWAaW46

— Matt Lee (@APDiploWriter) June 30, 2015

No, this administration is different than previous administrations. Previous administrations (with the exception of Carter) may have referred to Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria as 'unwise' and may have called it 'illegitimate.' But only the Obama and Carter administrations have called it 'illegal.' (Which it's not). And the Bush administration did support some Israeli 'settlement' and did issue a letter saying that it expected that some of those 'settlements' would be made apart of Israel as part of a final agreement with the 'Palestinians.' But then came the Obama administration and disavowed the letter.

More importantly, every administration until the Obama administration has said that peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians' must come about as a result of a negotiated solution. Only the Obama administration - in a mad rush for a 'Palestinian state' that would immediately be consumed by terrorists - has attempted to impose a solution on Israel. Only the Obama administration has forced Israel to release terrorist murderers from its jail. And only the Obama administration has forced a 'settlement freeze' on Israel.

No, this is not the same as every other US administration.

Here's more on the State Department statement quoted above:

The U.S. State Department on Tuesday punched a big hole in Israel-led efforts to induce the Obama administration to regard boycotts of settlements as identical to boycott of Israel proper. In doing so, it provided the Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby with yet another painful lesson in the pitfalls of being too clever by half and biting off more than one should chew.

A special statement issued by the State Department Press Office on Tuesday afternoon made clear that while the administration “strongly opposes” any boycott, divestment or sanctions against the State of Israel, it does not extend the same protection to “Israel-controlled territories.” Rather than weakening efforts to boycott Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, as Israel supporters had planned, the State Department was actually granting them unprecedented legitimacy.

The statement came in the wake of President Obama’s signing of the Trade Promotion Authority bill, which grants him the authority he had sought to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership accord. But as the bill deals with free trade agreements in general, a clause was inserted in the Senate by Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and Republican Senator Rob Portman and by Representative Peter Roskam in the House of Representative that instructs American diplomats to include opposition to any boycott of Israel - or of persons from “territories controlled by Israel” - in their free trade negotiations with the European Union.

The State Department statement, however, makes clear that the bill will not change U.S. policy towards the settlements. “The U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements or activity associated with them, and, by extension, does not pursue policies or activities that would legitimize them,” it said. It went on to note: “Administrations of both parties have long recognized that settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground undermine the goal of a two-state solution.”

This anti-Israel administration cannot end soon enough.  'Most pro-Israel administration evah' my tuches.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, BDS, boycott divest sanction, free trade, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Peter Roskam, settlement product boycott, settlements, settlements are legal, US State Department

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:02 AM 0 comments

Report: EU 'weeks' away from finalizing required labeling of 'settlement products'

The more Europe changes, the more they stay the same. Europe has always been a bastion of anti-Semitism and it continues to be one. As even the Arab countries are abandoning anything other than lip service to the 'Palestinian cause,' Europe is stepping up its Jew-hatred, calling for a boycott of 'settlement products' via a labeling scheme.

The European Union is preparing new guidelines that would require Israel to label products made in West Bank settlements if they are exported to the 28-nation bloc, EU officials said Tuesday.

The move is the latest sign of international discontent with Israeli construction of settlements on occupied lands claimed by the Palestinians. And while the work is expected to take weeks, it comes as a grassroots movement promoting boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel is gaining steam.

Israeli officials reject the European labeling plan, saying it would amount to a type of boycott and would discourage the Palestinians from pursuing peace talks.

The Times of Israel reported last week that the issue of labeling settlement goods could snowball into a major headache thanks to the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement gathers steam against Israel for its policies toward the Palestinians.

According to one of the EU officials, the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, told European foreign ministers last month that work is “underway” and that a set of guidelines will be “finalized in the near future.” The officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal EU affairs.

There have been other recent actions that have underscored the controversial settlement issue.

In recent weeks, Israel fended off a Palestinian attempt to expel Israel from FIFA, the global soccer federation. Britain’s national student union endorsed the anti-Israel boycott movement, and the chief executive of French telecom giant Orange said he would like to sever business ties with Israel. The CEO, Stephane Richard, has since tried to backtrack from his comments, but the uproar over the so-called BDS movement has not subsided.

An EU labeling effort would deliver an especially tough diplomatic blow, since Western European countries are among Israel’s closest allies. Europe is Israel’s largest trade market, though products from settlements, including wines, cosmetics and agricultural products, make up a tiny percentage of exports.

Europe's actions are not bringing 'peace' any closer. If anything, they're emboldening the 'Palestinians' to dig in their heels and insist on everything. 

Labels: anti-Semitism, Barack Hussein Obama, BDS, Binyamin Netanyahu, European anti-Semitism, European Union, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:15 PM 4 comments

UK opposed to labeling 'settlement products'?

At a celebration of Queen Elizabeth's 87th birthday on Tuesday, British ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould said that his country "clearly and unambiguously opposes boycotts."

The British government vehemently opposes boycotts of Israel, British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould affirmed Monday night "clearly and unambiguously," as his embassy hosted a celebration of Queen Elizabeth II's 87th birthday. "They (boycotts) do nothing to build understanding, they put up walls when we should be tearing them down," he asserted.

While Gould acknowledged that the two countries "don’t always agree on everything," pointing to the issue of settlements, he said that "the important thing is that we disagree as friends, and we will stand alongside Israel as a friend."

Does that mean that if the European Union decides to demand the labeling of 'settlement products,' Britain will be clearly and unambiguously opposed and will refuse to comply?

Hmmm.

Labels: BDS, Britain, Matthew Gould, Queen Elizabeth, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:11 PM 0 comments

Germany favors labeling 'settlement products'

Germany has decided to back the European move to label 'settlement products.'

Germany joins European Union's efforts to highlight items produced in Yesha, Israel Army Radio reported.

An official German government document lists its position on this issue for the first time. The document was submitted in response to requests from German opposition MPs and the position made it evident that even Germany, the great European friend of Israel, has this anti-Israel attitude.

Director of the Legal Forum for the Land Of Israel Nachi Eyal has an apt comment about Germany's decision.

"Germany is well-known for its anti-Semitic labeling of Jews. Perhaps next they will label Yesha products with yellow stars."

Indeed. More here. Israel ought to tell Europe that if they follow through with this, they will have no role to play in any peace process. They will be persona non grata.

Labels: BDS, European anti-Semitism, Germany, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:38 PM 0 comments

Obama's got Israel's back: US approves of European labeling of 'settlement products'?

According to the Netherlands' ambassador to Israel, Caspar Veldkamp, the United States has made no effort to stop the European Union from labeling products from Judea and Samara as 'settlement products,' and apparently approves of the effort to keep those products away from European consumers.

He spoke with reporters at his Herzliya home on Wednesday about Israel’s economic and diplomatic relationship with the Netherlands; but a portion of the conversation dealt with his country’s vocal support for the labeling of West Bank settlement products.

Veldkamp explained that this initiative has wide support in the European Union and even tacit approval from the Americans.

“The United States did not discourage us from this direction,” he said.

The Netherlands’ Ministry of Economic Affairs has already drafted advice for merchants and retailers, including supermarkets that want to mark West Bank settlement products. But it still needs to be approved by a council of ministers.

The draft advice has been put on hold, however, pending the publication of EU legal guidelines on how best to issue such consumer labels.

Last week, the Dutch foreign minister was among 13 of his European counterparts to sign a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in support of labeling.

...

“Being a friend of Israel does not mean that you always agree with the government position,” he said. “The Netherlands is one of the more Israeli friendly countries in Europe.”

The two countries have very strong trade ties, he said. It comes in second, after the United Kingdom, as an export destination in Europe for Israeli products, he said.

“It is the only EU member state that has blacklisted Hezbollah,” he said, and added that it is pushing others in the EU to do so as well.

 Friends don't make friends expose themselves to terror. That's what a 'Palestinian state' would mean for us.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, BDS, European Union, settlement product boycott, US support for Israel

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:24 AM 1 comments

Priorities: As their economies collapse, Europe worries about labeling 'settlement products'

With their economies collapsing around them, the Europeans are busy finding ways to ensure that their citizenry does not buy any 'settlement products.'

The work now underway in Brussels to create guidelines for the sale of West Bank settlement products follows a December 2012 conclusion by an EU meeting of foreign ministers that all agreements with Israel “must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, namely the Golan Heights; the West Bank, including east Jerusalem; and the Gaza Strip.”

Postal codes placed on these products already alert European custom officials that the products are produced over the pre-1967 line and are thus not part of the EU’s free trade understanding with Israel.

But the label still reads “made in Israel” and the consumer cannot distinguish on which side of the pre-1967 line the product was produced.

Last week 13 European foreign ministers sent a letter to the EU’s Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton in which they applauded this work.

...

Among the countries that signed it were: the United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia.

Here in Israel, we should hand out candies and other sweets made in Judea and Samaria on the day when the final collapse of Europe is confirmed. That day is coming soon. They deserve to rot.

Labels: European anti-Semitism, European Union, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:56 AM 1 comments

European anti-semitism out in the open: Boycott ahead?

They have nothing to say about Syria or Sudan or Somalia or anyplace else in the world where people are being massacred daily, but days after announcing that they were seeking to ban 'violent settlers,' the Jew-hating Europeans are seeking to ensure that no 'settlement products' enter their soon-to-be Islamic paradise.

Israel registered a protest with the EU last week regarding a conference scheduled for Wednesday in Brussels about the possibility of labeling goods made in the settlements.

Rafi Schutz, the Foreign Ministry’s deputy director-general for Europe, called the ambassadors of Denmark, Ireland and the EU to the ministry on November 19, in the midst of Operation Pillar of Defense, to protest the scheduled meeting, called an “informal technical workshop on settlement products and related policy issues.”

Schutz also protested by phone to a ranking official at the British Embassy.
Britain, Ireland and Denmark, as well as the EU’s foreign service, were singled out for promoting the conference along with various NGOs.

...

Schutz told the ambassadors that the move unfairly singled out and discriminated against Israel, because while this was not the only area in the world where there was a territorial dispute, it was the only area in the world regarding which the EU was discussing specially labeling goods.

For example, goods originating from northern Cyprus, Tibet, Kashmir, the Russian-held regions of Georgia, Armenian-held regions of Azerbaijan, and Kosovo are not specially labeled.

Schutz also said that some of the NGOs participating in the conference, such as the Irish Trocaire, were involved in the boycott and divestment movement against Israel. Meanwhile, he pointed out, some NGOs that didn’t support the labeling had not been invited to the meeting.

He also said that such a move ran contrary to the spirit of the World Trade Organization, which calls for free trade and open borders for merchandise.

An ongoing survey by Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich raises suspicions that Judea and Samaria are being treated differently than anyplace else in the world where there is a territorial dispute.

Art. 49 [of the Fourth Geneva Convention] focusses on the prohibition of kicking out the inhabitants of occupied territory. Art. 49(6), however, provides that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” From the text, it would appear that it requires substantial action by the Occupying Power: it does not create a no-go zone for nationals of the occupying power who wish to migrate into the occupied territory. “Deport or transfer” is even murkier. It seems to require that the occupying power actually move the civilians in for a violation to occur (such things have been known to happen).

...


When one reads discussions of Israel and 49(6), the only precedents cited are various statements about 49(6) – in the context of Israel. One might conclude that Israel has been the only significant alleged violator in the post-War period. If there were no other arguable 49(6) cases, then this limitation would be natural.

Our project allows for a more dispassionate look at 49(6) by 1) using multiple independent data points; 2) not focussing on arguably the single most politically controversial situation in the world. Thus to be clear, the research project is NOT about Israel.

Indeed, instead of focussing exclusively on Israel [see Parts VI-IX of the ICRC state practice guide], we study global state practice. In particular, we examine civilian population movements into occupied territory from Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia, and several other cases, and the international legal response to these actions.

Our paper is not finished, as we hope to have a comprehensive survey. What we see so far, as described in my talk above, is that state practice in regards to these migrations fairly uniformly shows that the movement of civilians into occupied territory is not treated as “deportation or transfer” even when it is favored or generally supported by the government. Second, even for migrations directly organized by the government that may violate 49(6), international authorities have never regarded the removal of the “transferred” civilians as the appropriate remedy. On the contrary, U.N.-approved land-for-peace deals leave settlers in place, and often even let them vote on a referendum about the occupied area’s political future.

One difficulty with making such research comprehensive is that unlike with Israel, where every outhouse built by Jews in the West Bank is documented and reported, civilian migrations by occupying nationals elsewhere is very poorly chronicled, at least in English sources, making it hard to determine what the facts, and thus the law is.

Recall Natan Sharansky's 3D test for anti-Semitism.  It sounds to me like the Europeans have more than met it.

Things haven't changed much in the last 70 years have they?

Labels: BDS, European anti-Semitism, occupation, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:40 AM 1 comments

Swiss supermarket chain piously marks product origins

Switzerland's Migros supermarket chain has piously decided to give its customers 'more information.' Specifically, they have decided to mark products that are manufactured in 'east' Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Migros stated that it wanted to offer customers greater transparency, adding that the Swiss government and the UN consider settlements illegal.

The company spokeswoman, Monika Weibel, stated on Tuesday that Migros does not support boycotts but rather wants to let customers make informed decisions.

Migros joins Britain, Denmark and South Africa.

I wonder why they're not marking products from Tibet, Chechnia or Northern Cyprus.... No, I don't wonder. This is Switzerland and they have a history of this stuff.

Labels: anti-Semitism, BDS, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:38 AM 7 comments

Here's one place there's no boycott against Israeli products: The 'Palestinian Authority'

With South Africa and Denmark poised to being labeling 'settlement products' separately, it bears pointing out that there is one place where there are no boycotts against Israeli products: The 'Palestinian Authority.'

Brand names like Strauss, Tnuva, Osem, Elite, and other smaller Israeli brands are displayed in Hebrew and Arabic side by side in stores in Bethlehem. The names are even featured on the store signs and in the stores themselves.

"People love and buy Israeli products," says one Bethlehem minimarket owner. And while there are local dairies that sell their products in the Palestinian Authority, he says "lots of people prefer to buy Tnuva products simply because there is tighter supervision and they want to feel safe in what they buy.

"It has nothing to do with politics. When we buy a product from you (Israelis) we know it is under supervision and only made with fresh ingredients."

The Israeli goods are not only found at the local food markets in the PA. Imad Naama, who owns a cleaning and hygiene product warehouse, explains that there is no comparison between the quality of Israeli products and other brands.

"If my clients see that the product has Hebrew letters on it or if it says the product is from Israel, they are sure that it is better," he notes.

Naama said that during the period before the Second Intifada and before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, products produced in Palestinian factories were marked in Hebrew and people were sure that was their place of origin.

After the Intifada broke out, manufacturers changed the inscription and removed the Hebrew so people refused to buy it, even though it was the exact same product. "They said they weren't willing to purchase it because it's what you call 'Arabic work'," he joked.

Faiz Hamadan and Khaled Saleima, stall owners at the market in Bethlehem said they had no political issue with selling Israeli made produce so long as it did not originate in the settlements.

"The Palestinian Authority patrols the stores and examines the country of origin of the inventory, no one here would sell anything that comes from settlement manufactories," they say.

"As long as the products come that come from Israel are inscribed in Arabic – it's fine and people will buy it."

The calls to boycott Israeli products have mainly permeated at the slogan level. On the ground there is no sweeping implementation of the boycott.

"We don't really have much of a choice as the Palestinian industry is not developed enough to compete with Israeli merchandise. There are things you can't buy unless they come from Israel since they aren't produced here, minimarket owners admit."

It's the economy, stupid!

Labels: BDS, Palestinian Authority, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:16 AM 2 comments

South Africa, Denmark won't label Judea and Samaria products 'made in Israel'

Both South Africa and Denmark (Hat Tip: Bad Blue) have announced that they will no longer label products made in Judea and Samaria as 'made in Israel.' This is from the first link.

In a statement published last week in the governmental gazette, Trade Minister Rob Davies declared that consumers in South Africa should not be misled into believing that products originating from the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” originate from Israel.

The minister specified in his note some “misleading labeled products” as “Ahava products, and other cosmetic brands, technology and soft drinks.”

Israel reacted furiously to the South African announcement, which the Foreign Ministry said was the first of its kind in the world. Spokesman Paul Hirschson said the ministry would call in the South African ambassador to protest the move.

“The singling out of one side of one conflict out of all the conflicts in the world is verging on racism,” he said, adding that “this is sad coming from South Africa, which should know better.”

Well, yes, but there is a second country as well. This comes from the second link.

Denmark is planning to ban labeling products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank as "Made in Israel," the foreign minister told Danish media on Saturday. The move follows reports of similar plans announced this month by South Africa's government.

“This is a step that clearly shows consumers that the products are produced under conditions that not only the Danish government, but also European governments, do not approve of,” Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal Søvndal told Politiken newspaper. “It will then be up to consumers whether they choose to buy the products or not.

A source in Brussels familiar with the matter told Haaretz that it is still unclear whether the move is a recommendation or a new directive.

In late 2009, the U.K. government recommended West Bank products be labeled separately.

And who is most likely to suffer from all this high minded behavior? You guessed it, the 'Palestinians.'

Ironically, those who would get harmed the most by the move are some 15,000 Palestinian workers who are employed in these factories and depend on them to make a living.

"Of course I am worried, but first and foremost I am concerned about my workers, who will be the first to get hit; there are thousands of employees here that are getting conditions that they won't get anywhere else in the Palestinian Authority, and if costs are cut because of the boycott, they will be the first to get fired," said a manager of a factory located in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

The manager noted that he successfully handled boycott attempts in the past, but this time the situation is more worrisome: "They always make it difficult for us, and up until now the workers couldn’t care less; ideology is a nice thing, but eventually economic interests prevail. This time we must stop the [tidal] wave.

"The workers and myself are in the same mind that there should be a political agreement at the highest echelons, even if it is secret, that would prevent these boycotts," he added.

Here's a copy of the South African notice.
As Haaretz so delicately put is, Mr. Davies is of 'Jewish descent.' A meshumad? (Someone who converted out of Judaism?).

Labels: Denmark, Judea and Samaria, settlement product boycott, South Africa

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:33 AM 0 comments

Business is business, even for 'Palestinians'

The Western Left may be boycotting Israel, but the 'Palestinians' are not. A 'Palestinian' who conducted a study as part of his Master's degree thesis has discovered that 'Palestinian' businessmen invested $2.5 billion in Israel and in the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria... in 2010 alone. This is from a 'Palestinian' site.

The study was conducted by Issa Smeirat, 43, as part of his M.A Degree. This is the first study of its kind, and its results surprised Palestinian and Israeli officials, Israeli Daily, Haaretz, reported.

...

According to the study, 16.000 Palestinian businessmen from the West Bank, who hold permanent permits from Israel to enter the country and conduct businesses, established businesses and firms in Israel and its settlements in the occupied territories. This includes establishing several factories and companies that has numerous branches, all paying taxes to Israel.

Smeirat also studied the motives that pushed those Palestinian investors to invest in Israel and its illegal settlements, especially since the issue is very sensitive and more Palestinian organizations, activists and officials are calling for boycotting Israel and its settlement products.

Talking to Haaretz, the researcher said that the sensitivity of this issue prevents the publishing of the identities of the investors, adding that while conducting his research, the Palestinian National Economy Ministry in the West Bank, the same ministry that launched the campaign to boycott settlement products, stated that the Paris Agreement does not prohibit investing in settlements.

He was referring to the Protocol on Economic Relations, which came as an annex to the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, the first peace agreement signed between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization on May 4, 1994.

The agreement incorporated the relations between the two parties, and was then incorporated and suppressed by Oslo 2 Agreement, and became known as the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 24 and 28 September 1995.

The study of Smeirat was presented by the end of last summer at the Al-Quds University. He obtained detailed information from Palestinian Commerce and Industry Offices about Palestinian investors in Israel and its settlements.

...

His study revealed that most of the investors are fluent in Hebrew, and more than half of them are 40 years old or older. This shows that those businessmen worked in Israel before it closed its borders to the Palestinians in the early nineties.

Approximately %23 of them worked as laborers in Israel before they established their firms and businesses, and only %0.5 of them do not speak Hebrew.

...

The researcher said that he believes that the main motive that encourages Palestinian investors to invest in Israel and its settlements is attributed to the limited capacity of Palestinian investments, especially since Israel controls %60 of the occupied West Bank, and also controls all natural resources, especially water, in addition to Israel’s restrictions on the freedom of movement of the people and the goods, especially since its controls all border terminals in the West Bank, and closed Israeli markets to Palestinian products.

The Israeli restrictions caused a sharp increase in production costs in the West Bank comparing to production costs in Israel.

...

Palestinian investments, according to Smeirat, are around 7 Billion U.S. Dollars; approximately $5 Billion of these investments are not in Israel and its settlements, as they are mainly invested abroad, either in projects or stocks, an issue that poses a significant challenge to investment opportunities in the West Bank.

He believes because he wants to stay alive and his name has been disclosed. I suspect strongly that the real reasons those investors invest in Israel rather than in the 'Palestinian Authority' are the skills and technologies available in Israel and the (relatively) lower level of corruption and required bribes in Israel.

That last paragraph seems inconsistent with the report itself which said that $2.5 billion was invested in Israel in 2010 alone.

Hmmm.

Labels: Arab boycott of Israel, Palestinian Authority, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:33 PM 0 comments

The new anti-boycott legislation, an alternative view

Elihu Stone and I go back more than 50 years. He sent me this essay about the anti-boycott legislation that was passed on Monday by the Knesset.

The Anti-Boycott legislation recently enacted by the Knesset has brought a firestorm of criticism from many claiming that such legislation is inherently undemocratic. Please allow me to present an alternative viewpoint:

Declaring that boycotts, per se, are illegal might be anti-democratic. However the subject legislation does not criminalize boycotts. Rather, the legislation provides a balance, allowing those who wish not to deal with Israel, even indirectly, to act as they see fit - so long as they do not interfere with otherwise binding contracts by calling for the economic destruction and international sanction of others who think differently than they do.

A careful reading of the legislation shows that it merely provides the possibility of defense - via an appropriate civil cause of action- for those whom the BDS (Boycott- Divestment- Sanction) supporters mean to strangle economically - and, arguably, undemocratically. Adherence to democratic principles does not demand - nor should it compel - any democratic institution to aid and abet all actions of those who effectively deny it the right to self defense, and actively advocate for its dissolution by any means short of armed assault. Moreover, those who would squash others by economic means should hardly be heard to complain when their intended victim chooses to withhold its economic support (in the form of tax breaks, etc.) from them. Israel's refusal to support its detractors in their declared efforts to undermine Israel's economy and blacklist all of its academic and cultural institutions is eminently reasonable - and, albeit long in coming, presents no unfair surprise to those who have consistently exploited democratic rhetoric and institutions in the service of most undemocratic ends.

Any fair assessment of the Anti-Boycott legislation must take into consideration the relevant history and context. the BDS Movement is hardly a being sui generis, springing spontaneously from thin air. Those with a sense of regional history will recall the Arab boycotts of Jewish and Zionist interests which began well before 1948 when the modern state of Israel was recognized by the U.N. Indeed, the Arab League boycott of Israel remains in effect today, administered by the Damascus-based Central Boycott Office (CBO), a specialized bureau of the League. The Arab Boycott - as does the BDS boycott - targets not only Israel and her institutions, but also companies that do business in or with Israel. A fair read of the BDS Movement's website reveals that ultimate goal of that movement, too, is the dismantling of the Jewish state - continuing the assault on her initiated by Arab armies in 1948 - via economic means.

Anti-Boycott legislation is hardly unprecedented in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In 1977, the United States Congress passed laws making it illegal for U.S. companies and individuals to cooperate with the Arab boycott against Israel and authorizing the imposition of not only civil but also criminal penalties against U.S. violators. The legislation that Israel has enacted is far less onerous for its opponents than the U.S legislation is for its opponents. On the other hand, the BDS Movement's boycott constitutes at least as great a threat to Israel, any who associate with her and to the very notion of free trade as the original Arab Boycott. Israel's legislation appropriately withholds Israeli governmental support from those who work toward Israel's destruction by economic means and provides a mechanism for Israel's constituency to defend themselves from (now) tortious interference with third-party contracts, premised solely on their connection to Israel, its institutions or areas under its control.

A majority of the Israeli Knesset has now agreed that Israel will no longer be complicit in engineering her own demise. The legislature has asserted its right to re-level the economic playing field and provide Israel's professors, farmers, merchants, entrepreneurs, hospitals and cultural institutions with some mechanism for defending themselves against the tyranny of those who would concentrate their economic might to wreak havoc upon them by precluding any association and commerce with them due only to some connection with the State of Israel, any of its institutions, or an area under its control (the Disputed Territories).

The wording of the Anti-Boycott measure might be improved upon; the Israeli courts (which the BDS boycott as institutions of Israel) will undoubtedly be called upon to interpret its scope and meaning, over time. However, this bill, crafted to allow the possibility of recourse - via legal challenge of those who call trans-nationally for trampling the economic, cultural and academic the freedom of Israelis and Israel's trade partners - serves to promote and maintain democratic ideals, such as freedom of association, economic substantive due process and - yes - the free exchange of ideas.

Indeed. Now, if only the Israeli Supreme Court would see it that way.

Labels: anti-boycott bill, Arab boycott of Israel, BDS, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:26 AM 3 comments

Anti-Boycott law passes Knesset

Israel's Knesset passed the so-called 'Boycott Law' on Monday night by a vote of 47-38. Four 'human rights' groups have already appealed the law's constitutionality to Israel's Supreme Court. This is from the first link.

The new law allows citizens to bring civil suits against persons and organizations that call for economic, cultural or academic boycotts against Israel, Israeli institutions or regions under Israeli control. It also prevents the government from doing business with companies that initiate or comply with such boycotts.

Elkin defended the measure, calling it “vegetarian” and saying that its meat was removed when the clause making boycotts a criminal offense was removed.

“The law says that if you harm me [with a boycott], I have the right to ask for damages, and if you boycott the State of Israel, don’t ask it for benefits,” he said. “It was significantly softened.”

But the law may not stand up to judicial scrutiny.

MK Yohanan Plesner (Kadima), one of the bill’s most vocal opponents, sent a letter to Knesset legal adviser Eyal Yinon on Sunday, complaining that the bill may be unconstitutional.

In response, Yinon said the legislation was “borderline illegal,” but that he would not stop the Knesset from voting on it.

“The broad definition [in the law] of a boycott on the State of Israel is a violation of the core tenet of freedom of political expression,” Yinon wrote.

He added that the law’s “goal is to affect the political debate on the future of Judea and Samaria, a debate that has been at the heart of the political debate in the State of Israel for over 40 years.”

Four 'human rights' organizations have already challenged the law in the Supreme Court.

Groups participating in the appeal include Adalah - the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights and Coalition of Women for Peace. The four organizations sent a letter to Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz demanding a halt in the approval process of the law.

According to the rights organizations, the "Boycott Bill" is "completely unlawful which limits freedom of political expression and is contrary to international law."

Furthermore, the groups allege that the law also "forces residents of east Jerusalem to cooperate with the occupation" and "violates the principle of equality by attempting to defend one political position while limiting other positions."

"Not only is the Israeli Knesset trying to silence the protest against the occupation - it is also trying to impose on victims and those in opposition to the occupation, to cooperate and actively support it," Director-General of Adalah Attorney Hassan Jubrin said. "[The bill] does not meet any criteria of international law and we believe that [the bill] will not receive the approval of the Supreme Court."

It is impossible to distinguish between a boycott which is unlawful and punishable, with another boycott against an industrial company or a municipality of some sort, Jubrin continued. "The distinction between different types of damaging protests exposes the unacceptable political intention of this law, which seeks to benefit only one side of the political spectrum and to silence public debate on a central and controversial issue," Jubrin added.

But what's most curious is the way the New York Times covers this story. If you buy the Times in New York State on Tuesday morning, you will get a different version than the one that's online and linked above. And it's too bad that the version in New York State has two key sentences that the Times didn't want the rest of you to see (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad).

“For years now there have been laws in the United States that come with fines and prison sentences for anyone who calls for a boycott of Israel, and yet the Israeli who persuades American companies to boycott us is completely exempt. That is ludicrous,” Mr. Elkin was quoted as saying in the popular Yediot Aharonot newspaper.

He was referring to a federal law in the United States that forbids Americans from complying with, furthering or supporting a boycott of a country that is friendly to the United States.

But of course the Times omits those two sentences, which make those Israelis sound a little less crazy, don't they?

Labels: anti-boycott bill, boycott divest sanction, liberal media bias, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:35 PM 2 comments

Ytong denies boycott

Ytong, a manufacturer of concrete blocks that was named on Monday as working on the 'Palestinian' city of Rawabi, has admitted that it is working on the project, but denies that it has agreed to boycott the Jewish cities and towns in Judea and Samaria.

Ytong, which manufactures concrete blocks, said that it was in fact servicing Rawabi.

In its statement to the media Ytong said that it had been asked by the Palestinians where its facilities were, and it had answered, “Ashkelon and Pardes Hana.” Ytong said it “never imagined that this innocent answer would link its name to the infamous boycott on settlements products.

“Ytong is not a partner to this boycott or any other,” it said. The company added that it would continue to deliver its products to any place within Israel, including the settlements.

Teldor Cables told the Post that it had no comment on the Army Radio story.

I would suggest that if they want to remove suspicion, they should sanitize the numbers out of the contract and make it (or as much of it as is possible) public. Otherwise, no one can or should believe them in light of the 'Palestinians' statement.

And I suspect that some of the other stories (like Teldor) are a lot less innocent.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: Rawabi, settlement product boycott, YTong

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:27 PM 1 comments

Facing our fears

Caroline Glick wonders just what makes our Prime Minister so afraid of the Obama administration.

ACCORDING TO sources close to Netanyahu, it is his fear of US abandonment at the Security Council that has convinced him to capitulate so profoundly to an administration so weak that it couldn't even get South Korea to sign a free trade agreement with it. What most concerns Netanyahu these days is that the US will fail to block a Palestinian bid to have the Security Council recognize a Palestinian state in all of Judea and Samaria and in large swathes of Jerusalem even if the Palestinians refuse to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

Since this is what Netanyahu fears the most, it is important to consider what is at stake. While harsh, the truth is not as bad as he thinks it is.

If the Security Council recognizes a Palestinian state in all of Judea and Samaria, in Jerusalem and Gaza, it would be a diplomatic blow to Israel. But it would only be a symbolic step. The situation on the ground would remain unchanged.

What is more problematic is what might happen in the wake of such a resolution. The worst case scenario would be for the Security Council to pass a subsequent resolution deploying forces to Judea and Samaria to fight the IDF.

Given the political maelstrom such an effective US declaration of war against Israel would cause him domestically, it is very unlikely that Obama would support such a resolution. He would have to veto it despite the fact that Samantha Power, who holds the UN portfolio on Obama's National Security Council, called in the past for US forces to be deployed to Judea and Samaria to fight the IDF.

The other two possibilities are that Israel will become the target of economic sanctions and that Israeli citizens who live beyond the 1949 armistice lines or who have served in the IDF will risk arrest on war crimes charges if we travel abroad. The purpose of such sanctions would be to strangle Israel slowly, in a manner reminiscent of the economic and political warfare that brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa.

In both these cases as well, it is unlikely that Obama will risk the domestic outcry that administration support for such resolutions would provoke. And even if he enabled such resolutions to pass, Congress would likely block US participation in enforcing them. This is not to say that Israel should ignore the threat. But such hostile action is best deterred by working quietly with Israel's allies in the US to point out the dangers of a runaway UN campaign against a fellow democracy.

At the same time, these threats of economic and legal warfare should sound familiar, because they are already being implemented against Israel. The Palestinians do not need a new UN Security Council resolution to advance their political and economic war against Israel.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton, settlement freeze extension, settlement product boycott

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:18 AM 3 comments

Your tax dollars at work funding 'Palestinian' terror and a stagnant economy

This article ought to be read by every member of the incoming Congress. Caroline Glick provides a primer of where American tax dollars are going in the 'Palestinian Authority' and in Hamastan (yes, in Hamastan). It's not pretty.

DESPITE HIS campaign to boycott Israel and punish Palestinians with economic ties to the Jewish state, Fayyad is the US's favorite Palestinian. Since PA President Mahmoud Abbas appointed Fayyad to lead the rump Fatah government in Judea and Samaria after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, US aid to the PA has increased by more than 700 percent. Most of this aid has gone to propping up Fayyad.

The US directly finances his budget. It funds and trains a Palestinian military. And it subsidizes his programs to build governmental institutions that loyally carry out his anti-Israel policies.

Last Wednesday, during a joint press conference with Fayyad, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the US will give the PA an additional $150 million in aid to supplement the $400 million in financial assistance that President Barack Obama pledged in June. This supplement comes in response to Fayyad's claim that he needs $500 million to close his budget shortfall.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the PA is the largest recipient of foreign assistance in the world. According to Bloomberg, it received $1.2 billion in 2009 and will receive $1.8 billion by the end of the year.

The US provided the PA with $500.9 million in 2009 and, before Clinton's announcement, was scheduled to provide it with $550 million in 2011. This assistance does not include US financial support for UNRWA, an agency devoted exclusively to providing welfare benefits to Palestinians while subordinating itself to a Palestinian political agenda. The US is the single largest donor to UNRWA. Last year the $268 million US taxpayers gave the UN agency constituted 27 percent of UNRWA's budget.

...

Take US security assistance to the Palestinians. The US responded to the Hamas takeover in Gaza by massively increasing its military assistance to Fatah. According to the CRS, between 2007 and August 2010, US assistance to the PA security services totaled $400 million. They received $100 million in 2010 and are set to receive $150 million in 2011. This assistance has paid for the training and outfitting of 400 Presidential Guards and 2,700 soldiers in the National Security Forces. The US plans to train five additional 500-man NSF battalions.

The CRS report acknowledged these forces have improved the law and order situation in Judea and Samaria. But it also asserted that "uncertainty remains over the durability of these improvements and their connection with broader Palestinian economic and civil society development and with progress on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations as well as over the willingness and ability of the forces to incapacitate militants."

Indeed, there is little reason to believe that these US-trained forces will not join forces with Hamas and turn their guns on Israel in the future. Since 1996, PA security services have taken a leading role in the terror war against Israel.

...

Then there is the US direct assistance to the PA's operating budget. The US has provided $350 million in direct budgetary assistance to the PA in the past two years. There are three problems with this aid.

First, it is far from clear that the PA needs this assistance. According to the International Monetary Fund and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2009 real GDP in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip grew by 6.8 percent, (8.5% in Judea and Samaria). The report also claimed that unemployment declined. So if things are going so well, why is it necessary for foreign donor countries to increase their direct assistance to Fayyad's budget?

Second, given Fayyad's rejection of free trade principles, particularly as they relate to Israel, the PA's largest trading partner, it is hard to see how his economic leadership is credible. As the failed stimulus packages in the US have shown clearly, government bureaucracies do not create jobs. That is the work of the private sector. And yet, Fayyad is barring Palestinians from having trade ties with their most important business partners and commercial market. This is not the behavior of a leader who is interested in facilitating sustainable economic growth.

Finally, the simple truth is that it is impossible to prevent US budgetary assistance to the PA from financing Hamas, in contravention of US law. Each month Fayyad transfers funds to Hamas-controlled Gaza to pay the salaries of PA employees there. Fayyad has argued that this assistance cannot be considered material aid to Hamas, since the employees are employed by the PA. But this is nonsense.

There's much more. Read the whole thing and send it to your Representatives and Senators.

Labels: Dayton forces, Palestinian Authority, settlement product boycott, US foreign aid

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:56 AM 1 comments

'Palestinian' boycott of 'settlement products' a British idea

And I used to think the French were our biggest enemies outside the Arab world.... The 'Palestinians' started boycotting 'settlement products' a few months ago (the picture is of 'Palestinian Prime Minister' Salam Fayyad throwing such products in a fire). Apparently, the idea to do so was British.

The Palestinian Authority deputy minister of the economy, Abdel Hafez Nofal, revealed that the British minister of trade had suggested to him that the PA institute a boycott of products of Israeli settlements, that is, products of any Israeli community or factory or plant across the 1949 armistice line from the pre-1967 Little Israel, the rump of the Jewish National Home territory left to the Jews after the War of Independence. So a British minister recently prodded the PA into ordering a boycott by its population of Jewish products made in the wrong place, that is, on the wrong side of the armistice line. To be sure, since Arab workers too work in many of the Jewish-owned plants, we could say that the products are also Arab in part. Here is the quote:

. . . Abdel Hafez Nofal, 56 years old, Palestinian deputy minister of the Economy. He is "Mr Boycott": "Everything started when the English minister of Trade said to me, 'We have decided to boycott the products of the settlements. And you?'"
[Il Sole- 24 Ore, 22 October 2010; p12]

It is not fully clear whether, when the British minister said "We have decided. . .", that the "we" referred to the British or to the EU. In any case, it is likely that the UK took the lead in the EU in pushing for a boycott.

Given their complicity in the Holocaust via the White Paper, I suppose we can't be too surprised.

Labels: British anti-Semitism, Salam Fayyad, settlement product boycott, White Paper

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:34 PM 6 comments