What did Mark Lamont Hill do wrong? He simply spoke the truth, this cannot be forgiven by CNN. Last night I watched the BBC's question time, on the panel was Layla Moran a new UK Liberal Democrat MP, she’s this country’s first British-Palestinian MP - her mother is from Jerusalem - but she wades into the Israel/Palestine debate sparingly “because it’s so emotive”. She made an exception for John McDonnell on Politics Live earlier this month though. “I had to mansplain anti-Semitism to him,” she says. Moran was upset about posters saying that Israel is a racist state. “The people who put it up were called London Palestine Action. As a Palestinian they don’t speak for me, and they are blatantly racist signs. You don’t say a whole country is racist. McDonnell said he’s ‘on a journey’.” She does a droney impression of him. “I was like ‘really?’ You’re 60 something years old, come on. If you haven’t realised by now that this is anti-Semitism no wonder there’s a problem in the Labour Party.”
“I’ve been attacked by people who say you’re not a real Palestinian and your mum’s not a real Palestinian for raising you that way. But when I see someone who is ‘on a journey about being anti-Semitic’ I’m sorry but I’m intervening. Calling out anti-Semitism doesn’t make me any less Palestinian. There’s a nuance in the argument that has been lost and Corbyn not saying antisemitism is wrong has fuelled the problem. Some responsibility does lie at his door.” https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/the-bright-new-face-of-the-centre-a-meeting-with-layla-moran-a3940011.html
Moran is an intelligent woman who is well aware of the Israel/Palestinian situation, as a new Lib Dem MP it must be difficult to acknowledge the many crimes the Israeli state is involved in and the second class status of Palestinians living in Israel. A cursory glance at the racist state laws, including its 1950 'right of return' laws [for Jews only] and the recent and racist basic Nation state law prove that the Israeli state is inherently racist, to say otherwise as Layla Moran does, presumably to enhance her career is despicable, like many in the Labour Party, she is a phony.
I had complaints turned down by the UK Authorities, The Trading Standards Authority and the Food Standards Agency, more on those at 'comments section' after Kate's article 'France ends requirement to label goods from West Bank settlements', 10th October 2018.
The Actual Law is enshrined in various EU Regulations like the one below….
The Indication of provenance detailed in Regulation 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:-
 “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.
Wine with the offending labels from the Golan Heights show two false representations:
1. ‘WINE OF ISRAEL’ and
2. PRODUCED AND BOTTLED BY GOLAN HEIGHTS WINERY 183 KATZRIN 12900 ISRAEL.
These are false facts in breach of the legislation, they are not misleading, in my opinion misleading means there is doubt as to whether something is true or false, in this case there is no doubt about the falsity of the representations.
The second offence is a failure to name the third country ‘Syria’ as required by the Regulation.
It is not possible for France to legally breach EU Regulations.
In my opinion the interpretive notice has been issued to clarify the regulatory provisions set out in various EU Regulations, like EU Reg 607/2009, the notice is not binding, the EU Regulations are.
Article 52 of EU Reg 607/2009
Marketing and export
Products whose label or presentation does not conform to
the corresponding conditions as laid down in this Regulation can¬
not be marketed in the Community or exported.
See also EU Reg 607/2009 in my comment above.
All EU states are required to implement EU Regulations in full and bodies have to be set up to prosecute offenders, in the UK the Trading Standards Authority [TSA]have been given the task. The fact that the TSA have not prosecuted any offenders so far is because [quite disgracefully] purely political reasons [I could right a book about the way TSA have abused their duties in order not to prosecute]. In the case of the Golan Heights “United Nations Security Council resolution 497, adopted unanimously on 17 December 1981, declared that the Israeli Golan Heights Law, which effectively annexed the Golan Heights, is “null and void and without international legal effect” and further calls on Israel to rescind its action.
The labelling on wine from the Golan Heights claiming that it is from Israel is false and in breach on EU Reg 607/2009 article 55. This Regulation must be enforced by the French Authorities, they have no other option.
Best of luck David, you will need it.
The Canadian/Israel free Trade Agreement did not describe the scope of the agreement, I suspect the Israeli side must have insisted that the Israeli customs applying to the OPT must be agreed to. When the European court had to interpret the Association agreement between the EU and Israel, and the EU and the Palestinian Association Agreement this is how the European Advocate General’s Bot interpreted both agreements in relation to exports from both jurisdictions, in light of the Brita case [Soda Stream] C-386/08 Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen.
"108. I would point out, first of all, that Article 83 of the EC-Israel Agreement provides that ‘[it] shall apply … to the territory of the State of Israel’.
109. The borders of the State of Israel were defined by the Plan for the Partition of Palestine, drawn up by UNSCOP (48) and approved on 29 November 1947 by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. On 14 May 1948, the Head of the Provisional Government of the State of Israel proclaimed the birth of that State on the basis of the borders which had been defined by the Plan for the Partition of Palestine. (49)
110. Furthermore, the preamble to the EC-Israel Agreement reads as follows:
‘Considering the importance which the Parties attach to the principle of economic freedom and to the principles of the United Nations Charter, particularly the observance of human rights and democracy, which form the very basis of the Association.’
111. Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967, referred to in the preamble to the EC-PLO Agreement, Israeli troops were asked to withdraw from the occupied territories, to terminate all claims or states of belligerency and to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. The United Nations Security Council sought the application of that resolution in another resolution, namely Resolution 338 of 22 October 1973.
112. In the light of the foregoing, the Court cannot but conclude, in my view, that the territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip do not form part of the territory of the State of Israel.
127. However, under Article 16(4) of Protocol 3 to the EC-PLO Agreement, responsibility for issuing EUR.1 certificates lies with the customs authorities of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
128. Moreover, it is clear from Annex V to the Israeli-Palestinian Agreement, relating to economic relations between the two parties, that the Palestinian authorities are not divested of all powers and responsibilities concerning commerce and the customs sphere. (57)
129. Indeed, under Articles VIII(11) and IX(6) of that annex, Palestinians must be able to export their agricultural and industrial produce without restriction, on the basis of certificates of origin issued by the Palestinian authorities. (58)
130. There are indeed, therefore, competent authorities responsible for issuing EUR.1 certificates for products originating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In fact, it would seem that economic operators can request those certificates from the Palestinian Chamber of Commerce. (59)
131. In my view, therefore, in order to benefit from the preferential treatment established by the EC-PLO Agreement, EUR.1 certificates proving the origin of products must be issued only by the Palestinian customs authorities. It would not be consistent for the preferential treatment established by that agreement to be applied to a product for which a EUR. 1 certificate has been issued by authorities other than the Palestinian authorities.