Trending Topics:

Israeli minister lashes out at South Africa as ‘apartheid state’ merely for seeking labeling of goods from occupied territories

Israel/Palestine
on 52 Comments
18125815 Screen shot 2011 07 18 at 12 56 58 PM
 Screen shot from The Truth About the West Bank Israeli Foreign Ministry 2011

South African Government News Agency:

“Cabinet approved that a notice, in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2008, be issued by the Minister of Trade and Industry requiring the labelling of goods or products emanating from Israeli occupied territories to prevent consumers being led to believe that such goods come from Israel,” said Cabinet spokesperson Jimmy Manyi on Wednesday.

Reuters:

Israel accused South Africa on Thursday of behaving like an apartheid state by requiring Israeli goods made by West Bank settlers to be labelled as originating from occupied Palestinian territory.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said it would summon South Africa’s ambassador to lodge a protest over the decision on labelling goods from Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

“Unfortunately it turns out the change that has begun in South Africa over the years has not brought about any basic change in the country, and it remains an apartheid state,” Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said in response to Pretoria’s move.

“At the moment South Africa’s apartheid is aimed at Israel,” added Ayalon, a nationalist hardliner in right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

Ayalon did not elaborate on what he meant by associating the labelling decision with apartheid.

annie
About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

52 Responses

  1. seafoid
    seafoid
    August 23, 2012, 12:27 pm

    This is a super article but it is sub only
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/oct/28/alliance-dared-not-speak-its-name/

    The book under review is

    The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa
    by Sasha Polakow-Suransky
    Pantheon, 324 pp., $27.95

    the money shot :

    (Shimon Peres) assured the president of Cameroon that “a Jew who accepts apartheid ceases to be a Jew. A Jew and racism do not go together”

    Israel and apartheid SA worked hand in hand in the 70s and 80s. Israel detonated a nuke off SA sometime in the late 70s.
    In public the two faced Peres would slate aparthid but in private he’d do anything for the business.

    Israel has always been run by chancers

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      August 23, 2012, 4:33 pm

      “Unfortunately it turns out the change that has begun in South Africa over the years has not brought about any basic change in the country, and it remains an apartheid state,” Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said in response to Pretoria’s move.

      Funny, this is the exact same argument that white supremacists use who long for the good ‘ol days when they could suppress and brutalize the colored population.

      I would hope people would nail Mr. Ayalon on this issue and ask him why he sues exactly similar arguments that are made by white supremacists in South Africa? Could it be that he stands for similar positions only in a much fancier suit and for his people, and not the Boers?

      By the way, does anyone know if he lives in the settlements?

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 23, 2012, 5:09 pm

        Bots spouting off about other countries they barely know and doing the bot thuggery routine on them make me laugh. What does an ignorant Likud prince know about any country other than the US ?

  2. frankier
    frankier
    August 23, 2012, 12:35 pm

    I guess the relevant question is whether the goods come from territories that are deemed “occupied” under international law. That’s what the Israeli government should focus about: is there misrepresentation by the S.A. government?

    But we know the answer…

    • annie
      annie
      August 23, 2012, 12:46 pm

      the relevant question is whether the goods come from territories that are deemed “occupied” under international law. That’s what the Israeli government should focus about

      frankier, funny you should mention that. this is why i chose this graphic for the text. ayalon, along with most of his cohorts, do not recognize the ‘occupied’ status of the palestinian territories. they probably don’t even recognize palestinian territories. see that ‘approved’ stamp over the whole mandate with the words ‘league of nations’ on it? they are living in a fantasy world. there is a link to the video under the graphic for anyone curious about ‘the truth about the west bank’ produced by the foreign ministry assumably under the purview of avigdor lieberman, the foreign minister and ayalon, the deputy foreign minister.

      • frankier
        frankier
        August 23, 2012, 5:28 pm

        “they are living in a fantasy world”
        Their fantasy is becoming more and more a reality and is enabled by the acquiescence of a portion of the international community and the direct and explicit cover provided by some countries.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      August 23, 2012, 1:16 pm

      According to the guardian post, which i linked to below, the SA government is considering Israeli borders as “1948 borders delineated by the United Nations”. I’m not sure if by that they mean the partition plan or the armistice line.

      • American
        American
        August 23, 2012, 2:15 pm

        “Bumblebye says:

        According to the guardian post, which i linked to below, the SA government is considering Israeli borders as “1948 borders delineated by the United Nations”
        >>>

        Always said that should be their borders. Go back to the original, ‘legal’ by UN action anyway, creation of Israel and go from there in a settlement.
        Not full justice but as close to justice as it will get.

      • lysias
        lysias
        August 23, 2012, 3:07 pm

        Under the partition plan, would Israel lose the Negev (and thus Dimona)?

      • lysias
        lysias
        August 23, 2012, 5:17 pm

        Wikipedia gives a map of the partition plan here. Even though the Jewish state was to get most of the Negev, including Dimona, Dimona would have been very close to the boundary.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 23, 2012, 8:38 pm

        Under the partition plan, would Israel lose the Negev (and thus Dimona)?

        I’ve pointed out many times that the Jewish Agency actually rejected both the UNSCOP majority and minority plans, because neither gave it the Negev nor the new portions of the city of Jerusalem, outside the city walls, that it had demanded.

        So the General Assembly immediately convened an Ad Hoc Committee of the whole to amend the partition plan in order to make it more to the Jewish Agency’s liking.

        The Negev was actually added to the proposed Jewish state at that stage and the two year transition period was shortened to just six months. More importantly, the requirement that the states adopt democratic constitutions prior to independence was dropped.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        August 23, 2012, 4:31 pm

        I’m not sure if by that they mean the partition plan or the armistice line.

        Wouldn’t it be the partition plan?

        I hope so – this goes to the significant point that talknic has made again and again here – that Israel declared its own borders to the UN in their application to join the UN in 1949; they are identical to the partition plan, and Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside those borders.

        This is Israel’s dirty secret – no wonder Israel’s Foreign Ministry is going mental over this. They want to keep it hush hush and very much consigned to the history books. When other countries start reminding Israel (and the world) that they already have declared their borders it’s all going to go belly-up.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 24, 2012, 12:21 am

        I think their intransigence over the 1967 borders and their insistence that all the land is theirs will mean 1948 comes back on the table. They are going to do something really stupid that loses them world support. Otherwise it will be a slow PR attrition that achieves the same

  3. lysias
    lysias
    August 23, 2012, 12:51 pm

    Ayalon may have been infuriated by this:

    South Africa says its backing of Palestine stems from its own history of apartheid, oppression and rights abuses.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      August 23, 2012, 3:19 pm

      Israel is wasting its time fobbing South Africa off with bullshit hasbara. The South Africans know the full history of Israeli co-operation with the apartheid regime. They know what Israel sold SA when the regime was murdering its own people in sharpeville.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/22/the-secret-arms-deal-between-israel-and-apartheid-south-africa.html

      Mandela is quoted by Polakow- Suransky “the people of South Africa will never forget the support of the state of Israel for the apartheid regime”

      The Diaspora bought Israel another couple of decades but the Jewish state will go the same way as apartheid . Because bigotry and race hatred have no place in the modern world.

  4. Bumblebye
    Bumblebye
    August 23, 2012, 12:55 pm

    The Guardian fleshes the story out a bit more, including that the South African ambassador has been summoned over this incident:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/23/israel-south-africa-west-bank-label
    I found the Israelis (and their SA support group) indignant squawks laughable. “Discrimination”, “exclusion”, “single out” – what have we not heard before!

    • annie
      annie
      August 23, 2012, 1:45 pm

      .The trade and industry minister, Rob Davies, added that the move was not a boycott of Israeli products, but aimed at helping “South Africans who do not support Israel, but who do support the Palestinians, to identify those products”.

      There was an angry response from the Israeli government, which described the move as “blatant discrimination based on national and political distinction”.

      Yigal Palmor, a foreign ministry spokesman, said: “This kind of discrimination has not been imposed – and rightly so – in any other case of national, territorial or ethnic conflict. What is totally unacceptable is the use of tools which, by essence, discriminate and single out, fostering a general boycott.”

      He added: “Such exclusion and discrimination bring to mind ideas of racist nature which the government of South Africa, more than any other, should have wholly rejected.”

      The South African Jewish Board of Deputies said it was “outraged” by the decision to re-label goods. Zev Krengel, its president, said: “It is the firm belief of the Jewish communal leadership that the proposed measures are discriminatory, divisive, inconsistent with South African trade policy and seriously flawed from both an administrative and procedural point of view.

      “At bottom, they are believed to be motivated not by technical trade concerns but by political bias against the state of Israel. All attempts to discuss these concerns, however, have come to nothing.”

      yeah, i agree.. they are probably not motivated by technical trade concerns but by political bias against the state of Israel. they probably just don’t like apartheid. ya think?

      it’s people’s right to distinguish and discriminate against human rights violators.

      • American
        American
        August 23, 2012, 2:09 pm

        ”summon”…”demand”…”outraged”

        As far as I can see the world has two choices in how to handle Israeli zios—either laugh in their faces and not have anything to do with them and Israel—or—-bust them.
        And since they think they are the world with their “Jewish World Nation” and World Congresses and World Orgs of this and that hubris and pretentiousness, and can’t stand being ignored and not acknowled as some kind powerful rulers in the world they will probably force the world to bust them.
        Bonfire of the Vanities, now playing.

  5. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail
    August 23, 2012, 1:13 pm

    Ayalon doesn’t seem to have a clue what the term apartheid actually means. He appears to think labelling goods in accordance with where they come from is some sort of terrible discrimination. Always happy to play the victim card, no doubt. In fact he is just using it as a cheap shot to smear SA. If the goods come from Israel, then clearly there is apartheid in Israel, since the WB has two legal systems, no free passage for indigenous people, total control of their movement and no civil or democratic rights for the people with the wrong parentage. If the territories are in dispute, and therefore not in Israel, then SA is quite right to indicate that in the packaging. Ayalon, like many others, is in complete denial of what is happening, wants it both ways, doesn’t like it when people point it out, and other countries ask Israel to stick to the law. I guess they just hate people pointing out the blindingly obvious, despite the care they take to not see it themselves. What an utter idiot he makes of himself. Nothing new there.

  6. eljay
    eljay
    August 23, 2012, 1:15 pm

    >> The Israeli Foreign Ministry said it would summon South Africa’s ambassador to lodge a protest over the decision on labelling goods from Jewish settlements in the West Bank. … “At the moment South Africa’s apartheid is aimed at Israel,” added Ayalon, a nationalist hardliner in right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

    Leave it to a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist like Ayalon to gloss over the fact that the supremacist “Jewish State” has “Jewish settlements” in the West Bank only because it remains engaged in a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.

  7. American
    American
    August 23, 2012, 1:51 pm

    “Israel accused South Africa on Thursday of behaving like an apartheid state by requiring Israeli goods made by West Bank settlers to be labelled as originating from occupied Palestinian territory.”

    LOL……I am trying to think of a single country, person or group the Israelis haven’t insulted and attacked when they reject the Israel occupation of Palestine….or anything else about Israel.
    There is something wired wrong in these zios that’s beyond ordinary chutzpah.
    They make enemies hand over fist and think Israel can continue by challenging everyone in the world? They should be able to see the Israel get out of jail free holocaust card is close to maxed out.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      August 23, 2012, 3:22 pm

      The South Africns aren’t going to take it lying down. They know the bots better than most countries do.

  8. Hostage
    Hostage
    August 23, 2012, 2:09 pm

    see that ‘approved’ stamp over the whole mandate with the words ‘league of nations’ on it?

    Yep, but the League only approved a British administered Mandate for Palestine, not a Jewish one. FYI, the British Parliament voted down the Peel partition plan. The League of Nations and Great Britain obviously never approved of anything other than the single state solution that they labelled a “Judeo-Arab self-governing commonwealth”.

    In 1932 the Chairman of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission said that, although he had assisted in the supervision of the mandatory administration of Palestine for eleven years, he had always found it extremely difficult to ascertain whether, as was required by Article 2 of the mandate, the development of self-governing institutions was assured for all the inhabitants, seeing that, under the terms of the same article, the mandatory Power had long since set up the Jewish National Home”. –http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B887C0FE3914081705256616005A499B

    At that time, the Jews were only occupying about 4 percent of the territory. 72 years later the World Court had the same complaint about the lack of self-government and freedoms for the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.

    In 1937 the Jewish Agency had begun using propaganda in an attempt to establish its sole claim to Palestine. It alleged that Palestine had been excluded from the area in which Great Britain and France had promised Arab independence and governments freely chosen by the indigenous populations. The Permanent Mandates Commission didn’t accept the argument. The members of the Commission privately advised the Jewish Agency that the Mandate could not be implemented according to their wishes. See David Ben-Gurion, “Letters to Paula and the Children”, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press Edition, 1971, pages 134-135

    The League put Great Britain in charge of implementing the Balfour Declaration. The representative of the British Government provided the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission with his government’s official interpretation of the intent of the Declaration and they accepted it without any objection or reservations:

    The view of His Majesty’s Government as to the intentions of the Balfour Declaration was as follows:

    “His Majesty’s Government and their predecessors, since the obligations of the mandate were accepted, had taken the view, which the tenor of the mandate itself implies, that their obligations to Arabs and Jews respectively were not incompatible, on the assumption that in the process of time the two races would so adjust their national aspirations as to render possible the establishment of a single commonwealth under a unitary Government.”

    http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FD05535118AEF0DE052565ED0065DDF7

    It goes without saying that Aylon’s map isn’t UN approved either.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      August 23, 2012, 2:21 pm

      “Yep, but the League only approved a British administered Mandate for Palestine, not a Jewish one.”

      True. But the bigger issue is that the assumption is that the zionists responsible for the picture are discussing the matter in good faith. “Good faith” and “zionism” are opposites.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 23, 2012, 6:14 pm

        But the bigger issue is that the assumption is that the zionists responsible for the picture are discussing the matter in good faith.

        Naturally. Commentators frequently discuss the death of the two state solution as if the one state solution is a radically new approach. In fact, it was the initial 25 year long failed political approach to Zionist racism and aggression in Palestine that resulted in the initial adoption of a two state political approach.

        On the other hand, calling for the recognition of Palestine as a simple matter of legal equity and enforcement of existing consensus and international law isn’t necessarily a call for more of the same or a pedantic exercise. A group a international human rights practitioners and legal scholars published their views on that subject in Chantal Meloni and Gianni Tognoni, “Is There a Court for Gaza? A Test Bench for International Justice”. Professor William A. Schabas, a member of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission, wrote by way of an explanation in the forward that:

        Only very recently there has been any serious prospect of the Israeli occupation and its consequences being addressed through the mechanisms of international justice and international courts. To some extent this is because the institutions themselves did not previously exist or were not available. But it is also the result of an increasingly robust use of international law as a means to deal with international disputes.

        Some have dismissed this as ‘lawfare’. . . . . The ‘lawfare’ libel is nothing more than frustrated resistance to the availability of new mechanisms and institutions whereby international law can be applied to present conflicts, including those involving Israel and Palestine. For decades, international law was a largely theoretical proposition, something invoked by academics and activists, and in debates within political bodies of the United Nations. Now, there is a realistic prospect that the great conflicts of our time can actually be brought to court.

        See http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-90-6704-819-4/#section=1047372&page=1

    • annie
      annie
      August 23, 2012, 2:21 pm

      thank you hostage.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      August 24, 2012, 12:26 am

      “His Majesty’s Government and their predecessors, since the obligations of the mandate were accepted, had taken the view, which the tenor of the mandate itself implies, that their obligations to Arabs and Jews respectively were not incompatible”

      That statement has no basis in fact. It’s PR. There can be no justice in colonisation, in handing over the land of one people to a crowd of outsiders. The Mandate with its facilitation of Zionism was ridiculous. Look at how it has destroyed the Levant and the wider region since the 1930s. Lebanon has been invaded 7 times by the bots. Now they want to destroy Iran .

  9. OlegR
    OlegR
    August 23, 2012, 2:11 pm

    In the face of what has been going on in South Africa lately

    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/21/massacre_in_south_africa_police_defend

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a7_1345420560

    i would suggest that they follow the old proverb about not throwing stones while sitting in glass houses…

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      August 23, 2012, 2:19 pm

      So they should just let you get away with your Apartheid, then?

    • American
      American
      August 23, 2012, 2:27 pm

      “i would suggest that they follow the old proverb about not throwing stones while sitting in glass houses…” Oleg

      We all live in glass houses……the difference between people is we/they admit it and you don’t.
      Have you ever seen anyone here who tries to deny or white wash what America does for instance? No you haven’t.
      You live in denial.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        August 23, 2012, 2:47 pm

        ColinWrigth (not exactly a supporter of Israel) not so long ago had a fascinating argument with Mooser about the merits of torture in the post 9/11 US

        Taxi another great friend of human rights
        argued in favor of Assad that a native dictator was oh sooo much better
        than a foreign one.

        You were also on Assad’s side, am i not correct (from the lesser evil perspective perhaps ?)

        That was just from the top of my head
        i can go on but it would be so boring…

        /We all live in glass houses……the difference between people is we/they admit it and you don’t./

        I have never denied that Israel has serious problems
        in a lot of areas, my disagreement with most of you (those that are actually worth talking to) is about the severity of those problems.

      • frankier
        frankier
        August 23, 2012, 5:30 pm

        The severity of the problems might not be acute for the average Israeli, but it sure is for ALL of the Palestinians… It is a matter of perspective, isn’t it?

      • gamal
        gamal
        August 23, 2012, 7:06 pm

        “Taxi another great friend of human rights
        argued in favor of Assad that a native dictator was oh sooo much better
        than a foreign one.”

        thats arguable isnt it?

        “You were also on Assad’s side, am i not correct (from the lesser evil perspective perhaps ?)”

        no, sorry, you going to have elaborate i dont get it

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 23, 2012, 11:41 pm

        “I have never denied that Israel has serious problems
        in a lot of areas”

        Click the blue “OlegR” above his comment, you will be linked directly to his comment archive, and it won’t take you long to discover how forthwright, “OlegR” is about ZIonism’s problems.
        But please, don’t call him a liar. The fellow is suffering from Ziocaine syndrome-related amnesia, and we don’t blame the disabled here. He obviously doesn’t even remember that he has a comment archive.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        August 24, 2012, 5:55 am

        Well American if memory serves me was arguing that whatever comes after Assad would be worse and arguably he could be right…

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        August 24, 2012, 7:50 am

        “I have never denied that Israel has serious problems
        in a lot of areas, my disagreement with most of you (those that are actually worth talking to) is about the severity of those problems.”

        Because you don’t seem to feel that oppression is bad if a Jew is doing it to an Arab. That is the crux of the problem with most of you people.

    • eljay
      eljay
      August 23, 2012, 3:18 pm

      >> In the face of what has been going on in South Africa lately … i would suggest that they follow the old proverb about not throwing stones while sitting in glass houses…

      Funny stuff, coming from a Zio-supremacist whose oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “glass house” of a state is constantly throwing stones.

      Funnier still is the faux moral outrage aimed at a country that simply wants Israel to label products as coming from within Israel proper (” … the 1948 borders delineated by the United Nations … “) or from the territories it illegally and immorally occupies and colonizes.

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      August 23, 2012, 6:40 pm

      How does labelling goods correctly count as ‘throwing stones’ at anybody? It is Israel’s absurd hysterical tantrum which has caused the issue here, not SA’s right to label as they see fit.

      Your attempts at immediately googling some other countries’ faults and then declaring that they are just as bad as israel avoids the issue, as usual.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        August 24, 2012, 5:56 am

        /Your attempts at immediately googling some other countries’ faults and then declaring that they are just as bad as israel avoids the issue, as usual./

        SA is not just as bad as Israel from what i have seen it’s much worth.

      • lysias
        lysias
        August 24, 2012, 10:34 am

        So do you think ending apartheid was wrong? Do you think it should be restored?

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        August 24, 2012, 11:11 am

        No, i think that ending apartheid was not enough.

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail
        August 24, 2012, 6:23 pm

        The same applies to Israel

    • Blake
      Blake
      August 24, 2012, 11:45 am

      democracynow has plenty of news stories regarding apartheid in Israel. Noticed you never provided a link to any one of them. Throwing stones at glasshouses…. pot kettle black

  10. annie
    annie
    August 23, 2012, 2:23 pm

    this was a bds win in my book

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      August 23, 2012, 5:19 pm

      All publicity is good bds publicity. They try to bitchslap any dissenters but they have more and more localised problems to deal with. Zionism aims to whack the moles as soon as they come up but there are so many these days .

  11. Philip Munger
    Philip Munger
    August 23, 2012, 5:22 pm

    I wrote a couple of blog diaries for firedoglake back when Ayalon posted the “The Truth About the West Bank” youtube in July, 2012. I also took some screen shots from the video. My favorites have him standing next to a map with both Palestine and Transjordan mandates with a HUGE Star of David plastered over them:

    http://my.firedoglake.com/edwardteller/2011/07/19/israeli-deputy-foreign-minister-danny-ayalon-annexes-jordan-on-youtube/

  12. Hostage
    Hostage
    August 24, 2012, 12:05 am

    My favorites have him standing next to a map with both Palestine and Transjordan mandates with a HUGE Star of David plastered over them

    The inclusion of Lord Balfour in the video is spurious too. He advised against the inclusion of the bulk of the territory of Transjordan in Palestine.

    Balfour wrote his infamous memo from the Paris Peace Conference in which he said “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.” . . & etc.” http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/60431057?access_key=key-136ulpy32ssl2l27p8nb

    In the same memo he indicated that the boundaries of Palestine did not extend east of the Jordan river yet and suggested that: “Palestine should extend into the lands lying east of the Jordan. It should not, however, be allowed to include the Hedjaz Railway, which is too distinctly bound up with exclusively Arab interests.” — See Nº. 242 Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia’ [132187/2117/44A], August 11, 1919 at the link above.

    The Zionist delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference also proposed an eastern border for Palestine to the west of the Hedjaz Railway: “In the East a line close to and West of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in the Gulf of Akaba.” — See Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, “Secretary’s Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon’s Room
    at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Thursday, 27th February, 1919, at 3 p. m.”, page 162 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1919Parisv04&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=162

    A line west of the railway terminating in the Gulf of Aqaba would exclude most of Transjordan: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Ferrocarril_del_hiyaz_EN.PNG

  13. FromAwayMan
    FromAwayMan
    August 24, 2012, 2:10 am

    Given Israel’s displeasure with the SA government’s decision to require specific labels to identify products made in Zionist settlements in the West Bank it may be instructive to review Zionism’s own long-running history of using labels, boycotts and sanctions which began in the 1930’s and continue, in a somewhat altered state, up to the moment.

    Some empirical evidence:
    1)
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/special-collection/historical-figures-and-themes/buy-hebrew-campaignhebrew-laborconquest-of-labor
    The entire “Buy Hebrew” and “Hebrew Conquest of Labor” programs were, in essence, boycotts. Zionism used the counter-phrasing “Buy (Hebrew)” instead of “Don’t Buy (Palestinian) in its effort to shatter the indigenous agricultural economy throughout the Mandate period.
    2) The labeling of “Hebrew” products was a vast undertaking and a specific label was created to help Zionist consumers identify Zionist products (“ours”) which included everything from melons, to eggs to concrete:
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/buy-hebrew-melons
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/every-watermelon-and-melon-from-a-hebrew-farm
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/eggs-from-a-hebrew-farm
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/to-fortify-our-home-use-hebrew-cement
    2) During the Cold War exilic American Zionism launched innumerable protests and boycott actions against the USSR and American companies doing business there in an effort to force open the doors of the Soviet Union and allow Jewish citizens to make aliya to Israel. Indeed, it might be argued that the contemporary BDS movement with its focus on illegal Zionist settlement in the West Bank shares parallels with Zionism’s Soviet Jewry model: Both relate to Zionist expansionism-via-transfer; both rely heavily on economic pressures and counter-pressures; both refer to a locus outside of Israel proper (one was an effort to enable Jewish people to leave the USSR and settle in Israel the other is an effort to enable Jewish Israelis to leave Israel and live in the Occupied Palestinian Territories) Linking economics and politics via boycotts and embargoes was pioneered by exilic American Zionism:
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/no-trade-no-aid-till-soviet-jews-are-free
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/link-us-ussr-trade-with-emigration
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/do-you-drink-pepsi
    3) Even today, political Zionism while in the very act of excoriating BDS is itself publishing calls for counter-boycotts and “buycotts” – contemporary efforts by Zionists to patronize and support the Israeli economy with numerous parallels to the “Buy Hebrew” campaigns of the 1930s and 40s:
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/divest-this-how-to-stop-the-bds-attack-on-israel
    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/captain-israel-no-2

    What arguments – moral, political, economic – might be made about the differences/similarities between the Zionist-driven boycott of Palestinian products of the 30s, 40s and 50s and the Palestinian-led boycott of Israeli goods today?

  14. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    August 24, 2012, 4:26 am

    “Israel accused South Africa on Thursday of behaving like an apartheid state by requiring Israeli goods made by West Bank settlers to be labelled as originating from occupied Palestinian territory… “

    …and Israel is ruled by gargling idiots who can no longer even construct a internally coherent falsehood.

    ‘Ooh — South Africa! Call them apartheid!’ Like something out of Idiocracy.

    In a way, this is like reading about the the decline and fall of the American mafia. Aside from everything else, all the intelligent Italians had gone out and joined the American middle class. All that was left were the high-school drop-out thugs — and they couldn’t run a tidy criminal enterprise for love or money.

    Is something similar happening to Israel? The people who used to run her may not have been morally any better — but they were a lot slicker.

  15. Blake
    Blake
    August 24, 2012, 9:48 am

    “Israel accused South Africa on Thursday of behaving like an apartheid state by requiring Israeli goods made by West Bank settlers to be labelled as originating from occupied Palestinian territory.”

    Huh? More proof zionists have swallowed the antonym dictionary in their twilight zone universe with their irrational logic.

  16. piotr
    piotr
    August 24, 2012, 11:36 am

    I think that Israel should learn some accountability from South Africa:

    LONDON (Reuters) – Platinum miner Lonmin , facing a strained balance sheet, a shortfall in production and lost revenue after a violent strike that left 44 dead, has appointed its chief financial officer as acting chief executive.

    The South Africa-focused company, the third-largest in the sector, said Simon Scott would take the helm while chief executive Ian Farmer pursues a course of treatment for an unspecified illness.

    ———-

    This was a strike in which the government was neutral, but provided police protection to the mine which was virtually under siege by thousands of workers. In days before the confrontation two police members were killed. A big groups of miners demanded that their wages be increased from about 500 dollars per month to about 1200. The company threatened lockout. Many miners had spears and machetes.

    This was a difficult and tragic situation and not a good occasion for gleeful name calling. In the category of “tactful diplomacy” I would preliminarily put Israel in the same class as Iran and North Korea, however, given the sheer number of individuals, organizations and countries insulted by the highest Israeli officials, I think Israel deserves gold medal.

    I think that a course of treatment could be recommended for quite a few ministers, Prime Minister included.

Leave a Reply