The European Court of Justice has just published its interpretation of “the underlying rules concerning indication of origin in connection to the matter of labeling agricultural products” in response to the case brought by the Psagot Winery (a case that former Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has now termed “stupidity”).
I already discussed some of the contradictions and inanities involved with it in August. I even proposed a solution, to which I will return. But now that the judgment has been finalized, a second review is in order.
The main thrust of the judgment—despite all the denials and obfuscation by the European Union—is to enable a boycott of those wines as well as other grown, produced and manufactured foodstuffs and items in the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley and parts of Jerusalem:
“Foodstuffs originating in the territories occupied by the State of Israel must bear the indication of their territory of origin, accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from an Israeli settlement within that territory.”
Veiled by a humanitarian concern for freedom of information and in taking a stand that there is illegality in the existence of the “settlements,” the European Union has no redoubled its political efforts to ethnically cleanse the heart of the Jewish homeland of Jews.
In claiming that there is a failure to indicate the country of origin which then “might mislead consumers into believing that that foodstuff has a country of origin or a place of provenance different from its true country of origin” is itself a misleading claim.
After all, foodstuffs produced by Arabs in the same area, if labeled as “Palestine” (as, for example, the Taybeh Brewing Company does) would be quite misleading as there is no country or state by that name. It is a geographical name of a region. In fact, it became “Palestine” in the modern era, sanctioned by international law, only because of Zionism and the just goal to reconstituting in that area the Jewish national home.
Moreover, Israel legally maintains a belligerent occupation—that is, one whose origin is as a result of hostilities. The hostilities themselves—namely, the 1967 Six-Day War—were of a self-defense nature against aggression. As the court notes, the relevant regulation refers equally to a “territory” and a “state.” To label the wine as made in “Judea” or “Binyamin” or “Samaria” should suffice. Israel surely exercises its “full range of powers recognized by international law” in those territories.
Moreover, as the court notes:
it follows from the very wording of the Union Customs Code that that term [the concept of ‘country of origin’] refers to entities other than ‘countries’ and, therefore, other than ‘States.’ ”
It would logically follow from all that verbiage that labeling a bottle of Psagot wine or dates from the Jordan Valley as “Binyamin, State of Israel” or “Jordan Valley, State of Israel” is not misleading and falls within the geographic definition required. After all, the court, as I understand, agrees with this as so:
“the indication that a foodstuff comes from an ‘Israeli settlement’ located in one of the ‘territories occupied by the State of Israel’ may be regarded as an indication of the ‘place of provenance,’ provided that the term ‘settlement’ refers to a specific geographical area.”
But no, the court insists that its judgment is intended “to prevent consumers from being misled as to the fact that the State of Israel is present in the territories concerned as an occupying power and not as a sovereign entity.” But Israel does exercise its legal sovereign power in being the legitimate occupier of those areas in accordance with international law. Occupation per se is not necessarily illegal.
In a third point, which I consider invidious, the court declared that it:
“first of all underlined that the settlements established in some of the territories occupied by the State of Israel are characterised by the fact that they give concrete expression to a policy of population transfer conducted by that State outside its territory, in violation of the rules of general international humanitarian law.”
That “characterization” ensues from the label and an “omission of that indication … might mislead consumers. Consumers have no way of knowing, in the absence of any information capable of enlightening them in that respect.”
But why should consumers need to know about a supposed “violation” of humanitarian law”? I can only guess, despite E.U. protestations otherwise, that it wishes to point the consumers in the direction of boycott. There can be no other reason. As the court makes explicit:
the provision of information to consumers must enable them to make informed choices, with regard not only to health, economic, environmental and social considerations, but also to ethical considerations and considerations relating to the observance of international law. The Court underlined in that respect that such considerations could influence consumers’ purchasing decisions.
Quite clearly, they intend to educate consumers to take “ethical considerations” that can only lead to conclusions for the practice of boycott. Moreover, the court’s reasoning is quite shakey.
I turned to and received this official response from the E.U. Spokesperson’s Office in Tel Aviv:
The E.U. does not support any form of boycott or sanctions against Israel. The E.U. rejects attempts by the campaigns of the so-called “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” (BDS) movement to isolate Israel.
I beg to differ with that assertion.
NGO-Monitor detailed on Tuesday the corrosive financial and political backdrop to the decision, which includes that fact that NGOs, as a stepping-stone to boycotts, pushed for labeling and, ironically, receive large funds from these same E.U. governments. There is a lot more.
Of course, there is another way out.
Why not initiate direct marketing to Europe, which, I think, is already done on a small scale? Internet sales. It could be, facetiously but advantageously, marketed as “The Wine Banned By Brussels.” It would tell the consumer that the E.U. bureaucracy wants to prevent him from making quality purchases based on a political outlook. As a friend suggested, for Judea and Samaria-friendly people, “the E.U. wants you not to purchase this wine because they are made by Jews in places the E.U. forbids Jews to live.”
Jews are by right in Judea and Samaria. The League of Nations confirmed our historical connection to these territories. In the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan, the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” are employed. Jews were not in Judea and Samaria between 1948-1967 due to an inhumanitarian and illegal ethnic-cleansing operation conducted by Arabs between 1920 and 1948. Our presence there post-1967 is a result of Arab terror and aggression.
It is our right to be Judea and Samaria, and to grow grapes and dates and everything else we can grow and produce and manufacture there. And we will continue to so do.
Yisrael Medad is an American-born Israel journalist and political commentator.