Trending Topics:

‘Huge win for Palestinian activism’: Canadian court rules settlement wines can’t be labeled “Product of Israel”

Activism
on 41 Comments

A federal judge in Canada ruled earlier this week in favor of pro-Palestine activists that wines produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank should not be able to carry “Product of Israel” labels.

The landmark ruling in Kattenburg vs. Attorney General of Canada was decided by Justice Anne Mactavish, who said in her decision that labeling settlement wines, made in the occupied West Bank, as products of Israel was “false, misleading and deceptive.”

Dr. David Kattenburg, an educator, social justice advocate, and longtime pro-Palestine activist, said he was overjoyed when the judge ruled in his favor on Tuesday, July 29th.

“We hit it out of the park,” he told Mondoweiss, adding that while he had faith in the Canadian justice system, he was anticipating a loss. “I was incredibly happy when I read the judge’s decision.”

Judge Mactavish’s decision stated the following:

“While there is profound disagreement between those involved in this matter as to the legal status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, I do not need to resolve that question in this case. Whatever the status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank may be, all of the parties and interveners agree that the settlements in issue in this case are not part of the State of Israel. Consequently, labelling the settlement wines as “Products of Israel” is both inaccurate and misleading, with the result that [the decision by the Complaints & Appeals Office (CAO) of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)] affirming that settlement wines may be so labelled was unreasonable.”

She went on to affirm that “one peaceful way in which people can express their political views is through their purchasing decisions. To be able to express their views in this manner, however, consumers have to be provided with accurate information as to the source of the products in question.”

Mactavish concluded that due to their “misleading” nature, the labelling must be changed, a decision she left up to the CFIA.

“Canadian citizens, citizens in free societies have a right to truthful information upon which they can behave responsibly in democratic societies,” Kattenburg told Mondoweiss. “And the judge ruled that false labeling infringes on that right to exercise conscious consumer choices.”

“That’s why this decision is so amazing,” he said. “It reinforced the fact that Israel does not have the right to violate international law and conceal its violations to people who wish to hold them accountable.”

Years in the making

The judge’s decision on Tuesday was a long time coming for Kattenburg, who first filed a complaint back in 2017 to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), one of the world’s largest buyers and sellers of alcohol, when he noticed that the retailer was selling two brands of settlement wine labeled as products of Israel.

Label on a bottle of wine at the Psagot Winery, outside of Ramallah in the West Bank. (Photo: David Kattenburg)

Label on a bottle of wine at the Psagot Winery, outside of Ramallah in the West Bank. (Photo: David Kattenburg)

“I thought, Israel is staking claims of sovereignty over stolen land on Canadian store shelves,” Kattenburg told Mondoweiss. “This is how I interpreted the ‘Product of Israel’ designation.”

But after getting no response from the LCBO, Kattenburg decided to file a complaint with the CFIA. After six months of deliberation, the CFIA announced its position that, yes, the wines were mislabelled.

The CFIA quickly reversed its decision, however, after immense pressure from Israeli government officials and pro-Israel organizations in Canada. Kattenburg called the quick reversal “obscene.”

So Kattenburg appealed the decision, only to be rejected. When he exhausted all other legal avenues, he filed his suit in federal court with the assistance of Attorney Dimitri Lascaris, who took the case pro bono.

When asked what motivated him to take the issue up to federal court, Kattenburg told Mondoweiss that he couldn’t ignore the fact that by allowing the LCBO to stock shelves with mislabeled settlement wine, “Canada, which declares settlements illegal, was essentially endorsing Israel’s annexation of the West Bank.”

“That was outrageous to me,” Kattenburg said. “These labels are not anodyne designations, like ‘product of France’ or ‘product of Chile’.”

“Labeling settlement wines as products of Israel is clearly a political statement, that ‘this land belongs to the Jews and is Israeli land.’”

Global impact

The judge’s decision is being celebrated by Kattenburg and other pro-Palestine activists as a huge win for global Palestinian advocacy.

“In effect, the federal court ruled that, without explicitly mentioning BDS, that boycotts are perfectly legitimate, and false misleading and deceptive labeling infringes on that right, which is amazing!” Kattenburg told Mondoweiss.

By saying that Canadians have the right to choose to purchase goods based on beliefs that are political and ethical in nature, the ruling “constitutes an endorsement of boycotts,” he said.

“This is huge for Palestinian activism in Canada, and around the world,” Kattenburg said, highlighting similar efforts being taken in the EU against the mislabeling of Israeli settlement wines.

“Some people think ‘oh it’s just wine labelling, what does it really matter? How is this going to  promote peace and justice in Palestine? But i think it’s a pivotal development. It drives a major wedge into Israel’s settlement enterprise.”

Kattenburg acknowledged that it will “take a whole lot more than judicial decisions like this to reverse Israel’s creeping annexation of the West Bank.”

“But pronouncements like this consolidate the view within the international legal community that settlements are flagrantly illegal and without effect.”

The fight continues

While Kattenburg is celebrating the court’s decision as a huge win, he knows the fight isn’t over yet.

The government has until September to file an appeal, and with federal elections coming up and continued pressure from the Israeli lobby, Kattenburg believes they are likely to appeal the judge’s decision.

NPR quoted Shimon Koffler Fogel, President and CEO of the Canadian-based Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, as saying the judge’s ruling featured “substantive errors.”

“Current labelling practices are fully consistent with the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, as well as Canadian and international law. This is why we are urging the Government of Canada to appeal this misguided ruling,” NPR quoted Fogel as saying, adding that the CEO “plans to consult with legal experts and seek intervenor status should the case be appealed.”

Kattenburg says he hopes that if the case goes up to the federal court of appeals, that the court uphold Judge Mactavish’s ruling.

“Truthful settlement labeling constitutes more than just correct labeling,” he told Mondoweiss. “It it constitutes or embodies a statement that the West Bank is not in fact a part of Israel, that the settlements are illegal, and that economic aid and support for the settlement enterprise is illegal under international law, and citizens have the right to act on that information.”

Kattenburg told Mondoweiss that he, along with his lawyers, are gearing up for a battle in the appeals court, promising to fight until the end.

“But we need people’s support,” he said, urging supporters of his case and the Palestinian cause to donate to his GoFundMe campaign, called “Label the Occupation.” The money will be spent on legal costs, while any unused  funds will be donated to not-for-profit Palestinian solidarity organizations in Canada.

Yumna Patel

Yumna Patel is the Palestine correspondent for Mondoweiss. Follow her on Twitter at @yumna_patel

Other posts by .


Posted In:

41 Responses

  1. HarryLaw on August 2, 2019, 4:00 pm

    Well done Dr. David Kattenburg, I too took a case to the Wirral Magistrates Court in 2015 concerning falsely labelled wine from the Golan Heights, unfortunately the District Judge Abelson was an Israeli firster and questioned my assertion that Katzrin was in Syria, I told him it was not me who asserted that fact but the UNSC Resolution, he made a political decision not to proceed with the case. Earlier the Trading Standards Agency had asked for advice from the Food Standards Agency who advised the TSA and myself…
    “I understand the point you are making but as you can imagine the situation is primarily a highly sensitive political issue and will not be resolved by the Agency refusing to allow the of such wine.
    I regret therefore that we will not be taking any further action in respect of your complaint unless we are instructed to do so by aither the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or by DEFRA who are responsible for wine policy issues and represent the UK at the EU wine Management Committee”. Graham Finch Technical Inspector.
    I took the case myself as a litigant in person as Section 6, Prosecution of Offenders Act allows me to, No help whatsoever from the Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, they wanted cash upfront. Here is a snapshot of my case……

    The Indication of provenance detailed in Regulation EU 607/2009 Article 55 sets out the compulsory particulars required for third country wines [outside the European Community] and ‘Shall’ be indicated as follows:- For wines without protected designation of origin or geographical indication, one of the following:-
    [1] “the words ‘wine of […..]’, ’produced in [….]’, or ‘product of [….]’, or expressed in equivalent terms, supplemented by the name of the member state or third country where the grapes are harvested and turned into wine in that territory.

    As evidence I produced two bottles of wine with the offending labels. Both labels make at least two false representations:
    1. ‘WINE OF ISRAEL’ and
    2. PRODUCED AND BOTTLED BY GOLAN HEIGHTS WINERY 183 KATZRIN 12900 ISRAEL.
    Despite the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, the sovereign territorial status of the Golan Heights is still regarded by the International community, including the UK government as Syrian territory, as set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 497, of December 1981, which declared :- “That the acquisition of territory by force was inadmissible and that Israel’s decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the Golan Heights is null and void and without legal effect”.

    – “Sauvignon Blanc”’, indicates that the grapes were grown and harvested entirely in the Golan Heights. Under country of origin rules, originating products are determined, (in this case, grapes) by being wholly grown, harvested and turned into wine in that territory, therefore the wine is of Syrian origin.
    The geographical territory, together with all the metrics by which country of origin is arrived at is the determinative factor, not the nationality of the exporter, if this was not the case the world trade system would collapse.
    As an added factor, both labels when viewed as a whole show at least five other indicators which tend to confirm the false facts in 1 and 2 above as shown in Documents 5 and 6.
    1. Golan Heights Winery with Galilee underneath, ‘Galilee’ is a region of Northern Israel.
    2. The wine is Kosher for Passover; and is authenticated for the Jewish religious holiday of Passover by a Rabbi from the Northern Israeli City of Tiberias.
    3. The web page http://www.golanwines.co.il indicates an Israeli country code [il]
    4. Barcode first three digits 729 indicates Israeli origin, although not conclusive proof of origin.

    • JWalters on August 3, 2019, 9:29 pm

      Thank you for whacking away at the legal walls of the crooked castle. Those are blows to the foundation.

  2. Misterioso on August 3, 2019, 9:46 am

    Kudos to Dr. David Kattenburg. Mabruk!! A significant victory with major positive implications for the long suffering Palestinians, the indigenous inhabitants of the lands between the River and the Sea.

  3. Jackdaw on August 3, 2019, 8:15 pm

    If the bottles were labeled, ‘Product of Palestine’, Mondoweiss and BDS still wouldn’t drink it.

    At a minimum, Mondoweiss and BDS want Judea and Samaria ‘judenfrei’.

    • eljay on August 3, 2019, 8:52 pm

      || Jackdaw: … At a minimum, Mondoweiss and BDS want Judea and Samaria ‘judenfrei’. ||

      “Judea and Samaria” do not exist. Assuming you mean geographic Palestine – which comprises Partition-borders Israel, Palestine and the Free City of Jerusalem – you are either:
      – outright lying (not unusual for a Zionist); or
      – anti-Semitically conflating Zionists/Zionism with all Jews (also not unusual for a Zionist).

      • JWalters on August 3, 2019, 9:32 pm

        He’s enacting a lost Mel Brooks comedy in his basement. He tries out new lines here.

      • Nathan on August 4, 2019, 11:28 am

        eljay – You’d be surprised to learn that Samaria and Judea are terms appearing in the UN Partition Plan of 1947. Since you seem to regard the Partition Plan as legitimate, you might want to moderate your comment that “Judea and Samaria do not exist”. You can find the full document (UNGA 181) in the internet, but I’ll quote the relevant line for you: “The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road…”

      • eljay on August 4, 2019, 7:08 pm

        || Nathan: eljay – You’d be surprised to learn that Samaria and Judea are … ||

        “the Israeli government term for the administrative division encompassing Israeli-occupied West Bank excluding East Jerusalem.” (Wiki)

        I stand corrected: The term “Judea and Samaria” exists and it refers to militarily-occupied, not-Israeli territory.

        My reply to Jackdaw’s accusation still stands: He’s either outright lying or anti-Semitically conflating Zionists/Zionism with all Jews.

      • Talkback on August 5, 2019, 11:00 am

        Nathan: “Since you seem to regard the Partition Plan as legitimate, …”

        Which is still quite puzzling, Eljay. What’s the base for its legitimacy? No referendum in the whole of Palestine. Not even a refererendum within partition borders if Nonjews want to live under Jewish ruling. There’s not even an internal legitimacy. And mere recognition doesn’t transfer title.

      • eljay on August 5, 2019, 3:04 pm

        || Talkback: Nathan: “Since you seem to regard the Partition Plan as legitimate, …”

        Which is still quite puzzling, Eljay. What’s the base for its legitimacy? No referendum in the whole of Palestine. Not even a refererendum within partition borders if Nonjews want to live under Jewish ruling. There’s not even an internal legitimacy. And mere recognition doesn’t transfer title. ||

        Partition happened. IMO, it can be undone – over time and should they wish for it to be undone – by the democratic will of the citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees in and from the secular and democratic:
        – states of Israel and Palestine; and
        – Free City of Jerusalem.

        “Jewish ruling” sounds as supremacist as “Jewish State”. Abolishing these (and any other supremacist) concepts and structures isn’t a matter of referendum – it’s a matter of justice and morality.

      • Talkback on August 5, 2019, 7:39 pm

        @ Eljay

        I respect your position, but I still don’t get it. My question was why you find the partition plan legitimate. That it happened doesn’t adress my question and it is not something categorically irreversible.

        1.) So where do you draw the moral line between the de facto partition and everybody else which has become de facto since then?
        2.) And if you think that partition cannot be changed what makes you think that “Jewish ruling”/”Jewish state” can?

      • eljay on August 5, 2019, 9:50 pm

        || Talkback: @ Eljay

        I respect your position, but I still don’t get it. My question was why you find the partition plan legitimate. That it happened doesn’t adress my question and it is not something categorically irreversible.

        1.) So where do you draw the moral line between the de facto partition and everybody else which has become de facto since then?
        2.) And if you think that partition cannot be changed what makes you think that “Jewish ruling”/”Jewish state” can? ||

        Hi, Talkback. The following likely won’t answer your questions satisfactorily (although I have no doubt that it will put a tight knot in echi’s knickers), but it’s the best I can do.

        Roughly speaking, I suppose I don’t view the partition / division of the territory (geographic Palestine) to be comparable to the injustice and immorality of everything that followed it. It was highly unfair and unfortunate but it didn’t have to alter how the indigenous population essentially lived and functioned on their respective homes and lands within the new structure (two states and a FCoJ).

        Every else – ethnic cleansing, terrorism, oppression, colonialism, supremacism and sundry (war) crimes – unquestionably was and continues to be injustice and immorality.

        I don’t know that Partition can’t be undone or that Zionism and all of its associated evils can be eliminated, but my opinion is simply that:
        – the injustice and immorality must be eliminated and reforms must take place;
        – the guilty people and institutions must be held to account for their actions;
        – sincere attempts must be made to rectify the wrongs (RoR, reparations, etc.); and
        – the future of the territory should be left up to the collective democratic will of the populations of the two secular and democratic states and the FCoJ.

      • echinococcus on August 5, 2019, 11:23 pm

        Eljay,

        In short, you continue to support the continued occupation of Palestine by invaders as a matter of rights — albeit an acquired right, acquired by virtue of ? — without any explanations. Anyway, I am not allowed to say any more as MW, that paragon of anti-Zionism, censors me even if I write “good morning” or “see Spot run”.

      • Talkback on August 6, 2019, 9:05 am

        eljay: “Roughly speaking, I suppose I don’t view the partition / division of the territory (geographic Palestine) to be comparable to the injustice and immorality of everything that followed it.”

        What? The partition was implemented by gross injustice and immorality and crimes against humanity. Conquest, massacres, expulsion, looting, raping, confiscations, forced labor, destruction and depopulation of about 500 villages, expulsion of more than 750,000 Nonjews, etc.

        Why don’t you reject or question the LEGITIMACY of partition? Nobody is asking you to deny its reality.

        eljay: “I don’t know that Partition can’t be undone or that Zionism and all of its associated evils can be eliminated, but my opinion is simply that:”

        What makes you think that what you list can be done? Do you find it more likely that this can be achieved than undoing the partition?

      • eljay on August 6, 2019, 9:25 am

        || Talkback: … What? The partition was implemented by gross injustice and immorality and crimes against humanity. Conquest, massacres, expulsion, looting, raping, confiscations, forced labor, destruction and depopulation of about 500 villages, expulsion of more than 750,000 Nonjews, etc. … ||

        Like I said: The idea to partition / divide Palestine was a plan. Everything else – all of the things you list above – unquestionably were and continue to be injustice and immorality.

        || … Why don’t you reject or question the LEGITIMACY of partition? Nobody is asking you to deny its reality. … ||

        I do not believe that it was right of foreign powers to determine that Palestine should be partitioned / divided.

        || … What makes you think that what you list can be done? Do you find it more likely that this can be achieved than undoing the partition? ||

        I have no idea what can or cannot be done. I only know what I think should be done.

      • Mooser on August 6, 2019, 2:15 pm

        ” MW, that paragon of anti-Zionism, censors me…”

        …and the “edit” window is too damn short, too.

      • eljay on August 6, 2019, 3:13 pm

        || eljay: Like I said: The idea to partition / divide Palestine was a plan. Everything else – all of the things you list above – unquestionably were and continue to be injustice and immorality. … ||

        The first part of that paragraph was poorly worded, so I’ll reprhase: The idea/plan of Partition was wrong but I believe it didn’t have to alter how the indigenous population essentially lived and functioned in their respective homes and on their respective lands within a 2 state + FCoJ structure.

        The second part of the paragraph stands as written.

        It is my humble opinion that the injustice and immorality must be dealt. The wrong that is Partition can be rectified (through unification) by the collective, democractic will of the people of the 2 states + FCoJ if and when they choose to do so.

      • Talkback on August 6, 2019, 3:15 pm

        @ Eljay

        So why did Nathan claim that you seem to regard the partition plan as legitimate? You could have just said that you don’t. This was puzzling to me.

      • eljay on August 6, 2019, 3:40 pm

        || Talkback: @ Eljay

        So why did Nathan claim that you seem to regard the partition plan as legitimate?

        You could have just said that you don’t. This was puzzling to me. ||

        I don’t think that the partitioning of Palestine into 2 states and a FCoJ should have happened but I regard it as “legitimate” in the sense that it did happen, it needn’t have altered how the indigenous population essentially lived and functioned in and on their respective homes and lands within the new structure and I don’t think it should be undone by force.

        Nothing about the past and on-going injustice and immorality – from terrorism and ethnic cleansing to colonialism and (war) crimes to the supremacist nature of Israel – is legitimate.

        IMHO.

        Nathan already knows this but he enjoys playing Zionist games.

      • Talkback on August 7, 2019, 10:19 am

        Eljay: “I don’t think that the partitioning of Palestine into 2 states and a FCoJ should have happened …”

        What do you mean by “partioning of Palestine”? The plan or its implementation? Both didn’t just “happen”.

        Eljay: “… but I regard it as “legitimate” in the sense that it did happen. …”

        Again, it didn’t just happen, but since when is something legitimate, because it was proposed or implemented? Especially when it was proposed without asking those who were concerned and by pressuring foreign countries into accepting the proposal on the one hand and implementing it through war and expulsion on the other?

        Eljay: “it needn’t have altered how the indigenous population essentially lived and functioned in and on their respective homes and lands within the new structure ….”

        WHAT??? Then what was the actual difference? What was the need to partition that country? Everybody knew that it was about establishing a bridge head to bring in more Jews to take over Palestine.

        Eljay: “… and I don’t think it should be undone by force.”

        Why not? It was and it is still being done ONLY by force.

      • eljay on August 7, 2019, 10:41 am

        || Talkback @ August 7, 2019, 10:19 am ||

        Like I said at the outset, “The following likely won’t answer your questions satisfactorily … but it’s the best I can do.”

        I stand by my opinion on I-P. Broad points:
        – Israel must be rolled back to Partition borders in order to liberate Palestine and the FCoJ.
        – Israel must reform into a secular and democratic state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees (CIERs), equally.
        – The new state of Palestine and the FCoJ must similarly be secular and democratic and exist of and for all of their resepective CIERs, equally.
        – (War) criminals must be held accountable for their past and on-going (war) crimes.
        – Refugees must be allowed to return and/or be given compensation.
        – The future of the region – remain separate or integrate – is up to the collective, democratic will of the CIERs of the two states and FCoJ.

      • lonely rico on August 10, 2019, 3:44 pm

        > eljay

        I stand by my opinion on I-P. Broad points:
        Israel must be rolled back to Partition borders* in order to liberate Palestine and the FCoJ.
        – Israel must reform into a secular and democratic state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees (CIERs), equally.
        – The new state of Palestine and the FCoJ must similarly be secular and democratic and exist of and for all of their resepective CIERs, equally.
        – (War) criminals must be held accountable for their past and on-going (war) crimes.
        – Refugees must be allowed to return and/or be given compensation.
        – The future of the region – remain separate or integrate – is up to the collective, democratic will of the CIERs of the two states and FcoJ.

        Exactly right IMHO.

        * Israel’s borders being those of the Partition plan, and not the “Green Line” established by Israel’s criminal land theft in 1948.

      • Talkback on August 11, 2019, 5:23 am

        eljay: “Like I said at the outset, “The following likely won’t answer your questions satisfactorily … but it’s the best I can do.”

        I’m ok with that. I only find your opinion morally incoherent. Either partition and its implementation was morally wrong or it wasn’t. You agree that it was, but then you draw conclusions as if it wasn’t. It’s just a variation of the “Israel was born in sin, but now we have to accept it” argument.

        I call your position hyper-liberal Zionism.

      • eljay on August 11, 2019, 8:48 am

        || Talkback: … I call your position hyper-liberal Zionism. ||

        It’s odd that you’d incoherently refer to my position on I-P as any sort of Zionism given that it shares nothing with Zionism but if it makes you happy have at it.  :-)

      • echinococcus on August 11, 2019, 5:46 pm

        Eljay,

        “It’s odd that you’d incoherently refer to my position on I-P as any sort of Zionism given that it shares nothing with Zionism”

        It shares with Zionism the most basic tenet of that hateful nzoid ideology, namely that “Jews”, the Herrenvolk, have a right to reside in Palestine without permission by its owners.

        Who is speaking of “coherence” here? Day in, day out, you continue repeating the basic Zionist tenet unquestioned, reinforcing it in the brains of the many readers who already are confused to death and believe the Zionist invaders to be somehow indigenous. You push for giving up the key territorial right of the Palestinian people and call yourself anti-Zionist.

        “… but if it makes you happy have at it. :-)”
        There is no call for this kind of flippancy while refusing to discuss your role in propaganda.

      • Talkback on August 13, 2019, 5:33 am

        Eljay: “It’s odd that you’d incoherently refer to my position on I-P as any sort of Zionism given that it shares nothing with Zionism but if it makes you happy have at it. :-)”

        There’s no incoherence on my side. If Jews who take partition and what happened until 1967 as a de facto that shouldn’t be changed call themselves “liberal Zionists”- which is an oxymmoron – it is only conclusive to call someone like you “super–liberal” who takes only partition as a de facto that shouldn’t be changed.

        And bear in mind that my position is even more liberal than ecchis. I’m probably a hyper-liberal Zionist, because I think that the presence of Jewish colonists is not the main problem, but that they keep the natives expelled and denationalized and that there has never been a referendum.

      • echinococcus on August 13, 2019, 10:11 am

        Talkback,

        I don’t think my position differs from yours (as far as I know), except for the acknowledgement, or not, of a Palestinian “citizenship” bestowed on many hostile invaders by the Mandate Administration of the same colonial power that sent the invaders there. Also observe that the fact that the invaders “keep the natives expelled and denationalized” (necessarily, because of their basic ideology) “and that there has never been a referendum” means that the presence of the Zionist invaders is in fact the main problem.

      • eljay on August 13, 2019, 11:51 am

        || Talkback: … There’s no incoherence on my side. If Jews who take partition and what happened until 1967 as a de facto that shouldn’t be changed call themselves “liberal Zionists”- which is an oxymmoron – it is only conclusive to call someone like you “super–liberal” who takes only partition as a de facto that shouldn’t be changed. … ||

        My final comment on the matter:

        1. Zionism – every flavour of it – is about the self-proclaimed “right” of Jews:
        – to be supremacists;
        – to have as large as possible a supremacist state; and
        – to do “necessary evil” unto others.

        2. ” … Jews who take partition and what happened until 1967 as a de facto that shouldn’t be changed … ” are Zionists. They just happen to believe in a “kinder, gentler” implementation of their hateful and immoral ideology.

        3. There is nothing even remotely Zionist about my position on I-P.

        But you’re free to refer to it however you like.  :-)

      • echinococcus on August 13, 2019, 9:03 pm

        Eljay,

        “you’re free to refer to it however you like”

        Problem is, there is little in the way of adequate terms that come to mind to refer to someone who systematically undermines Palestinian rights at every opportunity but declares being opposed to what he is in fact supporting; who declares this stance to be “final” — refusing to refute or discuss any of the points that were made exposing this position. Something like Papal Infallibility by Divine Decree, perhaps.

    • Talkback on August 3, 2019, 9:07 pm

      Jackdaw: “f the bottles were labeled, ‘Product of Palestine’, Mondoweiss and BDS still wouldn’t drink it.”

      Of course not. Illegal Settler products are illegaly factured products, no matter how they are labeled. Why would anyone support this criminal endeavour and become guilty, too?

      Jackdaw: “At a minimum, Mondoweiss and BDS want Judea and Samaria ‘judenfrei’.”

      BDS’ goals are freedom, justice and equality. if you think that’s not possible with Jews you are either correct or antisemitic.

    • Mayhem on August 3, 2019, 10:22 pm

      Wines labelled ‘Product of Palestine’ would also warrant a court order that would affirm that such a claim is not justified.
      No big victory to be confirming that Judaea and Samaria are still disputed territories. The Israeli winemakers should just say their wines are made in Judaea or Sumeria which is not arguable.

      • Talkback on August 4, 2019, 3:31 am

        Mayhem: “Wines labelled ‘Product of Palestine’ would also warrant a court order that would affirm that such a claim is not justified.”

        Which court0? The settler entity’s Supreme Occupying Court?

        Mayhem: “No big victory to be confirming that Judaea and Samaria are still disputed territories”

        Where do you ZIonist get this delusional view form? The Westbank is not “disputed” but occupied under international law. There’s no dispute about it whatsoever. Even the Supreme Apartheid Court of the settler entity bases its rulings on the legal framework that the Westbank is under belligerent occupation.

        Mayhem: “The Israeli winemakers should just say their wines are made in Judaea or Sumeria which is not arguable.”

        Neither Judea nor Sumeria nor “Judea and Samaria” are countries. And what differents would it make to those who want to know if products were illegaly made by illegal settlers using illegal use of water and other natural resources?

      • eljay on August 4, 2019, 7:53 am

        || Mayhem: Wines labelled ‘Product of Palestine’ would also warrant a court order that would affirm that such a claim is not justified. … ||

        Not if they’re produced within Partition-borders Palestine.

        || … No big victory to be confirming that Judaea and Samaria are still disputed territories. The Israeli winemakers should just say their wines are made in Judaea or Sumeria which is not arguable. ||

        Samaria / Sumeria – apparently it is arguable.

        Anyway, Israeli winemakers should just say their wines are made in territory that:
        – is outside of Israel’s Partition borders (the borders it accepted and within which it was recognized as a state);
        – has been under military occupation by Israel since its inception; and
        – Israel continues to colonize with impunity and at the expense of the indigneous population.

        That is both the least arguable and the most honest claim they could make.

      • Nathan on August 4, 2019, 6:52 pm

        Of course, Talkback, the West Bank is disputed territory. According to the Oslo Agreement, borders will be established in the final-status agreement (which will end the conflict). Until the borders are agreed upon, everything is disputed territory by definition. Since you can’t even call Israel by her name, it seems rather obvious that you agree that everything is debatable.

      • Talkback on August 5, 2019, 10:41 am

        Nathan: “Of course, Talkback, the West Bank is disputed territory. According to the Oslo Agreement, borders will be established in the final-status agreement (which will end the conflict). Until the borders are agreed upon, everything is disputed territory by definition.”

        Where do you get this Hasbara nonsense from? Until the FINAL borders are agreed up in the FINAL-status agreement they are occupied according to the UN, its General Assemly, its Security Council, all UN member states (except the occupier), the International Court Court of Justice, the International Red Cross, all Human Rights Organisations and even the Surpreme Apartheid Court of the settler’s Apartheid regime. Just have a look into all resolutions, advisory opinions and rulings.

        Nathan: “Since you can’t even call Israel by her name, it seems rather obvious that you agree that everything is debatable.”

        Nathan, don’t lie again. I call Israel by its name in every second comment. If it pleases you I change my previous paragraph to end with “even the Supreme Apartheid Court of the settler’s Apartheid regime called “Israel”.

        But if I understand your position correctly you want to claim that all territory that the settler Aparheid regime controls is disputed whether on one side of the green line or the other.

      • Tonja on August 5, 2019, 11:00 am

        “Nathan : Of course, Talkback, the West Bank is disputed territory. According to the Oslo Agreement, borders will be established in the final-status agreement”
        I love how zionists use the oslo accords when it suits them, but otherwise use the accords as rug to clean their shoes.
        https://mondoweiss.net/2019/08/terrifying-eyewitness-demolitions/
        Area A isn’t under full PA authority according to the Oslo Accord?

        “Jackdaw : At a minimum, Mondoweiss and BDS want Judea and Samaria ‘judenfrei’.”
        unlike zionists who want to Judaizing the land?
        https://mondoweiss.net/2019/08/terrifying-eyewitness-demolitions/
        It’s incredible how Zionist always blame others for the misdeeds their do themselves…

        Nathan, Jackdaw, Mayhem, you zionists obviously have a lot to say here…
        but why none of you comment on there ??
        https://mondoweiss.net/2019/08/terrifying-eyewitness-demolitions/

    • Marnie on August 6, 2019, 6:56 am

      I can’t speak for Mondoweiss or BDS but I’d rather die than choke on the zionist swill. As far as your second sentence – bwaahhhaaaahhhaaahhhaaahhaaaahhaaaaahhaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Ronald Johnson on August 5, 2019, 12:26 pm

    Two outcomes; The Canadian gov’t will file appeals, postponements, and demurrers until
    Dr. David Kattenburg exhausts his funds. Then a countersuit about a frivolous action to be sure that the plaintiff is utterly ruined.

    Easier: The knesset will formally enact annexation of all “disputed territory”.

    There is an old joke, “If the man wants a blue suit, turn on the blue light.”

    • Marnie on August 6, 2019, 6:58 am

      There’s a newer joke @Ronald Johnson –

      Question: “If the (white) man wants –

      Answer: “Who the fuck gives a damn what the (white) man wants?”

      • DaBakr on August 9, 2019, 1:32 am

        @mr

        Too bad that jews are not ‘white’. Not askenaz, Mizrahi, or sephardi. Unless you consider Palestinians, Syrians, Libyans, Persians and Jordanian white as well.

      • echinococcus on August 12, 2019, 6:03 pm

        Of course “Jews” as defined by Zionists are “white”, see North-Eastern, Yiddish-speaking Europeans. All others are their hostages and water-carriers.

Leave a Reply