From The Times:
Britain was today embroiled in an international row after Israel accused the Government of encouraging a boycott of foods from its settlements in the West Bank.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has issued voluntary guidance to UK supermarkets stating labels should differentiate between "Israeli settlement produce" and "Palestinian produce". Foods are currently labelled "Produce of the West Bank".
Israeli officials fear Britain’s move signals a shift towards a wider boycott of Israeli goods...
I can't honestly say I buy much fruit (my five-a-day consist of four-and-a-half pints of lager and half-an-ounce of Old Holborn), but if I did, I'd always go for "Israeli settlement produce". The concept of "voluntary guidance" deserves a special mention.
The Graun's headline completely misses the point: "UK issues new guidance on labelling of food from illegal West Bank settlements".
There's no such thing as 'an illegal settlement'. Land law, and hence land ownership is a completely artificial concept. What it boils down to in practice is that whoever has the bigger army owns the land. The question that concerns me is "Who pays for the army?" It's only where the tenant is forced to pay rent as well as paying for the army that things get out of kilter (which is the last thousand years of UK history boiled down to one sentence).
Sunday Funnies...
24 minutes ago
11 comments:
I'm with you
my five-a-day consist of four-and-a-half pints of lager and half-an-ounce of Old Holborn
But it's Guinness for me for the extra Iron but the baccy's the same
I'd always go for "Israeli settlement produce"
and so will I
Much the same way as I always used to buy 'Cape' Granny Smiths even though I thought apartheid was wrong and I have always made sure my Oranges were 'Jaffa'
"Land law, and hence land ownership is a completely artificial concept."
All law is an artificial concept. So what?
The Guardian's use of the term "illegal" refers to their contention that UN resolutions are equal to "law", which is of course untrue. But an illegal settlement would be one that infringed the laws of the country in which it was situated. Just because it's an artificial concept doesn't mean there's no such thing.
Of course, this is a double-edged sword. It makes it easier for those sick of leftie and Hamas-supporting hectoring do-gooders to tactily support the Israeli cause by buying their produce and avoiding the other stuff...
And as I pointed out over at 'Harry's Place', this childish nonsense rather reminds me of the time my mother was asked to buy some fruit for a teacher’s party, with the admonition ‘But please, no grapes! We don’t want to support the apartheid South Africans, after all!’
As she remarked to me later, exactly where did the idiots think the apples and oranges they were tucking into came from, once she’d peeled the tell-tale stickers off..?
"I'd always go for "Israeli settlement produce"
I like fresh dates but I never buy Israeli. Aaron's high spend on 'defence' shows very clearly in his prices.
Adam "All law is an artificial concept."
Why say something that you know isn't true? Wherever in the world you go, there are a few 'natural laws' that exist all over. i.e. what you are carrying with you belongs to you (your suitcase and so on) and that if somebody attacks you that is a crime. Similarly, you'd know that if you steal things or kill somebody that is a crime.
These laws even exist (to some extent) in the animal kingdom.
Land ownership in the modern sense, by contrast, didn't exist until some clever clogs invented it, and there is one basic rule - whoever has the bigger army. Or how do you think Whitey got his hands on the USA and Australia at the expense of the natives?
Defra's websiste doesn't suggest it has any business making political value-judgments about labelling. It has a right and probably an obligation under EU law to enforce EU labelling requirements, hence the justifiable commercial and consumer protection for inside the EU, but the last time I looked, Israel wasn't.
So the minimum label would be "made out side the EU" and one might add a refinement that it is desirable, but not absolutely necessary, for consumers to know which country.
That Defra got in to this argument shows that somebody is using it as a political springboard. Never mind who pays for the army, who's paying for Defra to worry about Israel when it should be limited to worrying about Islington. The department has obviously got too much money if it can indulge in this, so we can save some money by pruning it.
If Defra - or anybody - really wanted to help Palestinians economically, The Daily Politics gave a how-to guide in the summer.
@Adam, and indeed, most of the settlements in the West Bank do breach Israeli law - just, the authorities don't take any enforcement action against them. That doesn't stop them being illegal.
"These laws even exist (to some extent) in the animal kingdom. "
So does the concept of land ownership, think of how territorial dogs get when someone intrudes on their territory.
R, "So does the concept of land ownership, think of how territorial dogs get when someone intrudes on their territory."
Sure, but animals defend their own territory 24/7, there's no concept of 'absentee landlords' or 'capital gains' or all the other things so beloved of landowners.
Used to be the lovely Margaret Beckett, but she got promoted to World Traveller UK Spokesperson, on account of doing such a good job on the Environment.
Post a Comment