This is a true coexistence, between people on the ground, not in Annapolis or at any peace conference.
The factory pays Palestinians far more than they make in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas, he says. So stigmatizing their products will hurt Palestinians. Better to call them “peace products.”
Isn’t this an argument for one state? Israel controls all the land; the two-state solution is over, as Bennett implicitly declares. Why not just end the idea of a Jewish state and go for a democracy, “true coexistence between people on the ground”? Seems like a no-brainer.
The video was posted by Only Thus/True Zionism. A rough translation of some of Bennett’s points:
We are in the Ariel industrial area located in Samaria in a Halva and cake factory, which employs hundreds of Palestinians and Israelis who work side by side. In this whole industrial area thousands of Palestinian and Israeli families are being employed and make a living….
There is an attempt in Europe to label these products manufactured here as if this place was an occupied territory.
In practice, whoever decides to label these products, tears down any chance for peace and threatens the livelihood of hundreds and thousands of Palestinians, who are paid 4 times higher the average pay in the Palestinian Authority.
I call on the global community to stop this nonsense, to stop this injustice of labeling these products. If at all we should label them as peace products.
Bennett is insane
No doubt some predecessor of his they argued in antebellum Georgia that slavery was far more dignified than life in West Africa.
He sounds like a child abuser. “The kids never get chocolate anywhere else”
I remember the same argument in the late 1980’s for South Africa.
My question is this: are the Palestinians and Jews paid the same for doing the same work? My guess is that the Jews are paid more. Just a hunch and I’d love to be shown wrong.
Bennett genuinely thinks he is not being dishonest when he say’s there is no occupation, in law there is a two part test for dishonesty, called the Ghosh test here;
1. Was the act one that an ordinary decent person (normally considered to be the ubiquitous ‘The man on the Clapham omnibus’) would consider to be dishonest (the objective test)? If so :
2. Must the accused have realised that what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest (the subjective test)?
Since the rest of the world know there is a occupation, Bennett is delusional, and dishonest. Subjectively Robin Hood may have thought what he was doing was right, when he was robbing the rich to feed the poor, Bennett is robbing the poor to feed the rich.