South Africa to mark items from occupied Palestinian territory

[Kuya]

South Africa's cabinet has said it had approved the placing of Occupied Palestinian Territory labels on imported goods from Jewish settlements.

"This is in line with South Africa's stance that recognises the 1948 borders delineated by the United Nations and does not recognise occupied territories beyond these borders as being part of the state of Israel," government spokesman Jimmy Manyi told a press briefing on Wednesday.

The trade minister was given the nod to issue a notice requiring that products are marked so that buyers knew their origin is not Israel, but beyond the Green Line, Manyi said.

The plan has already met protests in South Africa and been criticised by Israel's foreign ministry. Local Jewish leaders said on Wednesday that the community was outraged over what they called "discriminatory, divisive" measures....

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

The trade ministry in May invited public comments on the labels, saying traders must put the tags on so that consumers will "not be misled".

South Africa's relations with Israel have been uneasy for years but reached a new low last Sunday when Ebrahim called on the citizens of his country to avoid visiting Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians.

"Israel is an occupier country which is oppressing Palestine, so it's not proper for South Africans to associate with Israel," Ebrahim, told City Press newspaper.

Ebrahim's comments provoked an angry response from the Israeli foreign ministry.

"This proves our point," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor said. "All their initiatives to mutually inform, as it were, the consumer, are nothing but a boycott in disguise."

The foreign ministry also claimed that the new labelling "smacked of racism".

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...133793571.html

[archibaldcrane]

Israel's mad that people aren't calling the land they illegally stole and are currently occupying "Israel"? Lol.

[Kuya]

The accusation of racism hurled towards south africa was also a nice touch.

[Byrthnoth]

At this point I'm more than willing to admit Israel is a country. Regardless of how you feel about how it came into being, there has to be a squatter clause (adverse possession) in international diplomacy at some point. I mean, it's not like we're giving the US back to the native americans.

[archibaldcrane]

Israel is obviously a country. It's weird to call the occupied palestinian territories "Israel" though.

[Kuya]

Who mentioned anything about Israel not being a country? Or better phrased: what are you talking about?

[Byrthnoth]

Ah, I guess I misread the article. For some reason I saw "occupied Palestinian territories" and assumed they were talking about the whole of Israel.

[Kuya]

No, it means settlements on the West Bank. Though some people believe in Greater Israel, which would include the West Bank.

[Byrthnoth]

Okay, well this gets a big "who gives a fuck?" then. If South Africa wants to inconvenience themselves to show allegiance to their allies, so be it.

[Kuya]

Allies?

[thetruepandagod]

Why is Israel always so mad?

[Ragnus]

Because they view themselves as a discriminated and hated race who are only fighting to have their own slice of land in a world that seeks to wipe them off of it for being Jewish.

[ringthree]

Why is Israel always so mad?

It happens when everyone around you is trying to kill you.

[ringthree]

Israel's mad that people aren't calling the land they illegally stole and are currently occupying "Israel"? Lol.

Illegally stole?

I don't follow. Care to explain?

[archibaldcrane]

They took the occupied territories during a war, in violation of international law, and then started annexing that land bit by bit and moving settlers into it, in violation of the Geneva convention. Pretty much the only official body that thinks this is kosher is the Israeli govt, and even their own courts disagree with them.

In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Israeli High Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands
seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel."

The establishment of Israeli settlements are held to constitute a transfer of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territories and as such are illegal
under the Fourth Geneva Convention. [87][88][89] This is disputed by other legal experts who argue with this interpretation of the law [90]

In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1998–1999) said "the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. They hold that this is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."

[archibaldcrane]

In b4 "but other countries broke international laws too!"

[ringthree]

They took the occupied territories during a war, in violation of international law, and then started annexing that land bit by bit and moving settlers into it, in violation of the Geneva convention. Pretty much the only official body that thinks this is kosher is the Israeli govt, and even their own courts disagree with them.

Right, so you posted a quote from the Israeli supreme court that said it wasn't part of Israel. I don't see the part where it says "illegally stole".

The second quote specifically says that it is a disputed claim. And really? The HR watch for Palestine thinks the occupation is a war crime? This is a shocking development.

The area that Israel holds was gained during war, it's not pretty but it's not like it was a land grab. Israel has shown that it is willing to give up that land with security assurances for long term peace deals.

Let's stop rewriting history please.

[archibaldcrane]

You can't gain territory by warfare in international law. Them's the rules.

Point is, Israel's own courts don't consider the OTs to be part of Israel, the government shouldn't be mad that S. Africa agrees with them.

[Kuya]

Right, so you posted a quote from the Israeli supreme court that said it wasn't part of Israel. I don't see the part where it says "illegally stole".

The second quote specifically says that it is a disputed claim. And really? The HR watch for Palestine thinks the occupation is a war crime? This is a shocking development.

The area that Israel holds was gained during war, it's not pretty but it's not like it was a land grab. Israel has shown that it is willing to give up that land with security assurances for long term peace deals.

Let's stop rewriting history please.

At no point in time did you refute anything archi posted. Alls you've done is attack the credibility of the claims rather than showing they were false. You tried the say the claims are disputed without showing why that should delegitimize the statement that the occupation is illegal. You claimed that HR watch for Palestine's statements are suspect, without proving why that is true.

So let's start from there: your argument is weak.

Your statement that land gained via war is not land grab is both semantics and speculating on the intentions of the israelis during the declaration of the state of Israel.

And finally, if israel is willing to give back land for security assurances, then they should probably start by moving out the jewish settlers from the occupied territories otherwise they just look like they're trying to build facts on the ground while presenting an appearance of good will.

[Salodin]

I miss the days when you went to war, lost, and gave up land in the process. Shit was simple then.