by Michael Curtis
This is what occupies the European Union's attention when it faces demographic destruction from the south and east.
Forty
years ago, on November 10, 1975, the United Nations General Assembly
passed Resolution 3379 by a vote of 72 to 35, with 32 abstentions,
determining that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial
discrimination.” The resolution called on all nations to oppose “this
racist and imperialist ideology,” which those voting in favor considered
a threat to world peace and security.
Because
the vote was taken, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then U.S. ambassador to
the U.N., warned that the United Nations was about to make anti-Semitism
into international law, and that it was loosing a great evil on the
world. To all sensible observers, the resolution was based on hatred,
arrogance, and anti-Semitism.
To
a large extent, it was President George H.W. Bush who propelled action
and personally introduced the resolution to revoke Resolution 3379. He
held that to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism was to
twist history and to reject Israel itself. The United Nations could not
claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel’s right to
exist. On December 16, 1991, the U.N. General Assembly passed
Resolution 46/86 by a vote of 111 to 25, with 13 abstentions, in a
simple and unenthusiastic statement. It decided to “revoke the
determination contained in its Resolution 3379 of November 10, 1975.”
It
is ironic that in the same week as the 40th anniversary of the infamous
U.N. resolution, the 28-member European Union should issue its own form
of discrimination against Israel. After years of deliberation, the EU
has been unable to decide on a common policy to deal with the hundreds
of thousands of Muslim migrants entering the countries of the EU, or on
any quota to be allotted to the different member countries, or indeed on
any foreign policy issue except Israel.
The
EU was able to decide, on November 11, 2015, on an issue apparently
more important than war or mass migration – namely, the issue of
guidelines for the labeling of products coming from Israeli settlements
in the West Bank, what it calls territories captured and occupied since
June 1967. The settlements must clearly label products as coming from
them, not “Made in Israel.” The EU asserted that it was their duty to
inform European customers fully about the geographic origin of products
so that buyers could make informed decisions.
This
form of labeling of Israeli cucumbers is apparently more vital and more
urgent than any contribution by EU countries to confronting the growing
threat of Islamist terrorism to Europe, or other territorial disputes,
let alone any attempt to stop the flow of Palestinian terrorism in
Jerusalem and other cities.
The
labeling will largely be on fruits and vegetables – in effect, less
than 1 percent of all trade from Israel to the EU. What is the point?
Israeli settlements in the West Bank account for only 1.5 percent of
Israel’s exports of goods and services to the EU, which in total now
amount to $13 billion a year. Israel’s exports to the EU have in fact
grown 50 percent since 2005.
The
EU had already taken prejudicial action against Israel in at least two
ways. It excluded products from the settlements from the customs
exemptions that Israel had as an EU trading partner. It also held in
July 2013 that organizations in the settlements were not eligible for EU
grants, funding, prizes, or scholarships. This directive covers
science, academia, economics, culture, and sports. Both actions stemmed
from the decision of foreign ministers of the EU that all Israeli
settlements are illegal under international law.
The
reality is that this labeling process is not an economic policy, but a
way to exert political pressure on Israel. The essential if unspoken
question is whether this labeling, akin to the yellow badge of Nazi
days, is a form of anti-Semitism, since it might lead to a move to
boycott the whole State of Israel, preliminary to the elimination of the
state. It is difficult to see how the labeling can contribute to a
peace dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians.
The
EU did state that the labeling was not part of any plan for a complete
boycott of goods from the settlements or from Israel. However, Saeb
Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator who never negotiates and is now
the PLO secretary general, wrote more menacingly that the labeling was a
significant move toward a total boycott of Israeli settlements. The
Palestinian BDS movement heralded the EU action as a welcome sign that
the EU was reacting to “Israeli intransigence.”
Unfortunately
for both the proponents, Palestinians and others, of the BDS movement,
and the decision makers of the EU, their bias and prejudice were made
clear by Boris Johnson, the mayor of London since 2008 and a
Conservative member of Parliament, who was visiting Israel. Johnson,
born in New York of British parents, is renowned as a flamboyant, witty,
charismatic individual, famed for his skepticism of the value of the
European Union.
In
Tel Aviv on November 9, 2015, Johnson, who was paradoxically taking
part in a Middle East trade mission, spoke of boycotters of Israel in a
derogatory fashion. His words should be repeated in the halls of the EU
and elsewhere: “I cannot think of anything more foolish than to say you
want to have any kind of divestments or sanctions or boycott against a
country that is … the only democracy in the region … the only place that
has, in my view, a pluralist, open society. “
Johnson
might implicitly have been speaking to the foolish 343 British
academics who last week wrote in the Guardian paper supporting a boycott
of Israel. The supporters of this “so called boycott are really just a
bunch of corduroy-jacketed lefty academics who have no real standing in
the matter.”
As
a result of making this forthright statement, Johnson was forced to
cancel a series of meetings with Palestinians, partly because of fears
of security and partly because Palestinian groups themselves canceled
invitations because of his remarks.
What
better indication of the difficulty of making peace can there be?
Consider the crucial difference between Israel, an open society, and
Palestinians, who refuse to discuss anything with anyone who has a
difference of opinion with them. How can Palestinians be prepared to
enter into free, peaceful negotiations?
Another
factor is the revelation that leftists in academia and in the media,
politicians, charity organizations, and those interested in human rights
buttress the Palestinian Narrative of Victimhood, a device that allows
them to avoid peaceful negotiations with Israel.
Mayor
Johnson was wrong on one point of his description of academics, since
they rarely, if ever, wear corduroys these days, but he was not wrong in
his assessment of these academics and cultural personalities, who have
no real standing and whose real attitude may border on or have a touch
of anti-Semitism.
All
supporters of boycott of Israel might profit from attending to
Johnson’s words. A good British Conservative, the mayor remarked that
there is something Churchillian about the country that Churchill helped
to create. In Israel there is the audacity, the bravery, the
willingness to take risks with feats of outrageous derring-do.
Boycotters of Israel are not brave or audacious, nor do they take risks
in urging Palestinians to come to the negotiating table.
Michael Curtis
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/eu_priorities_how_to_label_israeli_cucumbers.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
