There are citizens of different nations living in many different disputed and/or occupied territories on the surface of this planet. The human world (to the inclusion of Europe) is actually replete with disputed territories as disputed territories are often typically considered “occupied” by the rival claimant that as it happens does not control the mutually disputed territory in question.
So my simple question to certain so keenly concerned governments is the following. Why not simply agree to legislating universal labeling policy for products from all disputed and/or occupied territories worldwide? The hypocritically disingenuous claim that is being offered about providing consumers with accurate information so as to allow them to choose for themselves would surely seem valid for all disputed and/or occupied territorial units worldwide, including for that matter businesses owned by continental Turks in Northern Cyprus and businesses owned by Israeli Muslims in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. So why not consider simply legislate a non-discriminatory law that applies universally in all such cases and you may hence avoid being publically considered and even “specially labeled” as Anti-Jewish bigots in tragically further degrading Europe’s reputation among the Israeli general public, something surely not conducive to the further development of vital economic ties with the global nerve center in high-tech R&D, something which together with a number of other similarly vital factors are surely very much potentially significant for Europe’s economic recovery? Also, the EU prohibits its member states from requiring labeling country of origin for products manufactured within the European common market so why hypocritically label others? It seems indeed that the purpose for this is a protectionist policy and is thus one aimed at favoring goods produced within the European common market over externally imported goods.
However, the reason legislation for universal labeling regarding products from disputed and/or occupied territories is not advocated and advanced by those very groups seeking to label goods from Talmudically Jewish owned businesses of Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem is simply because the purpose of those pushing this discriminatory Anti-Jewish agenda is to discursively normalize discursive discrimination against Talmudic Jewry and against Israel among the nations. Israeli Muslims living in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem are for some mysterious reason not considered “settlers”, their home construction activities are not considered “settlement activity” and products from their businesses in the area are not considered “settler produce” even if they also as their Talmudically Jewish neighbors and fellow Israeli citizens happen to indeed also live and/or produce in the same Area C of Judea & Samaria. Even Talmudic Jews and their descendants who lived in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria prior to being expelled in 1948 by the Jordanian army and having long since returned to the area are considered “settlers” and produce from their businesses in the area are also considered “settler produce”. Even products from businesses in Judea and Samaria owned by Diaspora Talmudic Jews are considered to be “settler produce” even if the employees are more often than not at least in part constituted by non-Israeli Palestinians in integrated work places in the area. The term “settlers” has thus in contemporary Anti-Jewish discourse become yet another superficially “sanitizing” Anti-Jewish euphemism for Talmudic Jewry precisely as the term “Zionists” before it.
Furthermore, Samaritans, members of an ancient Jewish sect who are not Talmudic Jews yet who are nowadays all Hebrew-speaking Israeli citizens and who were ethnically cleansed from Nablus during the infamous 2000-2005 terror campaign misnamed as the so called “Second Intifada” and who did indeed subsequently establish their own “new settlement” of Kiryat Luza south of Nablus as a refuge of theirs on their holy mountain Gerizim - are not considered “settlers” and their Israeli village is not considered “a settlement” despite being historically recently established and inhabited by Hebrew-speaking Israeli citizens who generally, willingly and patriotically perform military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Hence the sole criterion for whether someone is considered a “settler” here in this context is not citizenship but rather entirely whether they are in fact Talmudic Jews living in a certain territory. Thus the basis of this discrimination is in fact a completely illegitimate one, the same exact one that Talmudic Jewry has indeed faced throughout the long history of Anti-Jewish prejudice.
This discriminatory policy against an indigenous people living in its own indigenous sacred lands is thus in some ways very much akin to the Nazi German policy in Europe which as a matter of policy intended to exclude the non-Talmudic Karaite Jews from Nazi persecution and extermination. There is of course also a long history of European powers engaging in discriminatory delegitimization efforts towards other also mostly overseas indigenous peoples who in fact also tend to regard their indigenous lands as sacred.
Furthermore, why are goods produced at least partly by non-Israeli Palestinian employees in businesses owned by Talmudic Jews; businesses established in ancient sacred indigenous Jewish land – considered as produced by Israeli Jews only (sic!) when in fact it is also often at least jointly produced by non-Israeli Palestinians in entirely integrated local work places in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem? Also, why not also exclude all other disputed and/or occupied territories worldwide from international EU trade agreements? The fact is that this Anti-Jewish agenda is one that exclusively targets businesses owned by Talmudic Jews and is in this sense almost indistinguishable from historical Nazi German boycotts against German Jewish owned businesses; boycotts indeed exercised with the full weight of Nazi German law even if the employees were in fact not even Jewish.
As with contemporary Anti-Jewish propaganda generally against Israel and Talmudic Jewry; Nazi propaganda with its big lies & Communist propaganda with its big inversions are often the conceptual models here as well. The concept is hence to incrementally, slippery-slope-style make discursive discrimination against Talmudic Jewry seem supposedly “reasonable” and “acceptable” by introducing one “small” Anti-Jewish step after another and hence incrementally also attempting to normalize Anti-Jewish discursive discrimination generally and the Anti-Jewish BDS polarization agenda more specifically.
The stated purpose of discriminatory labeling of produce from businesses owned by Talmudic Jews and operated in indigenous sacred Jewish (yet internationally disputed) land is explicitly done so as to enable consumers to boycott Talmudically Jewish owned businesses as was indeed encouraged in the 1930’s in Nazi Germany and hence in both cases subsequently promote an incrementally broader Anti-Jewish discrimination discourse agenda. Because this is not labeling on the basis of citizenship of owners of businesses, it is rather labeling of products from businesses owned by Talmudic Jews as products from other Israeli businesses in the area (including from within Area C) that are owned by other Israeli citizens such as Israeli Muslims are certainly never considered as “settler produce”. This is hence both discrimination against Israel among the nations and discrimination against Talmudically Jewish business owners in a certain part of the world where Talmudic Jews are in fact part of the indigenous Jewish/Crypto-Jewish population in our very own ancient indigenous sacred land of Israel.
The intended political purpose is thus to incrementally mainstream Anti-Jewish BDS polarization with the next “logical” step seen as promoting trade embargoes against Talmudically Jewish businesses located or active across the genocidal 1949-67 lines (which were historically correctly “specially labeled” in Israel as “the Auschwitz lines”). This is specifically intended as a slippery slope tactics deliberately devised to promote sanctions discourse against Israel generally so as to hence increasingly once more put in place a question mark over the future of Israel’s economy, a market question mark that existed in the Israeli decades prior to the Oslo Accords. After all, how would any European democracy feel about any fellow democracy collaborating with hostile attempts on the part of Fascist enemies of open society and their corrupt political proxies aimed at deliberately putting a psychological question mark over its economic future in order so as to attempt to incrementally destroy it?
Furthermore, the inferred distinction between East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem is absurd and without basis in applicable codified international law as West Jerusalem from the EU’s own legal standpoint is terra nullius no less than East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. The EU does not recognize West Jerusalem & East Jerusalem as part of any sovereign state and hence officially consider the city to be what under international law is known as terra nullius, territory that is not considered to be under the sovereignty of any sovereign state. So why then is it considered OK for Europe to maintain diplomatic representations in East Jerusalem but not in West Jerusalem? Where is the logic when it comes to still very much existing discriminatory attitudes towards Talmudic Jewry?
There is apparently need for a new Aufklärung among certain misguided remaining patronizing European Besserwissers including those consciously/subconsciously so implicitly apparently keenly interested in strategically facilitating a Second Shoah at the hands of Muslim neo-imperialists so as to psychologically erase their own Western sense of “inherited sin” – by means of seeking indefensible and hence genocidal lines for Israel with which we Israelis are supposed to live with for a political “eternity” that could fatally prove to become very short indeed. Israel’s geographic capability to defend itself must thus not be taken for granted under any hypothetical absence of absolutely defensible borders. But of course, demagogically inciting & discriminating against Jews is I suppose seemingly more convenient for certain Western personalities than getting in trouble with China and India (and indeed much of the international community) through universal labeling legislation for produce from all disputed and/or occupied territories worldwide, including from inside the EU.
After all, Europeans have historically tended to blame Jews for the lack of success of gentile salvation history narratives and have also tended to blame Jews for what are indeed universal problems certainly not in any sense limited to or reducible to the Jews.
More about the Nazi roots of the BDS movement in the essay “The Other Side of Nordic Supremacism”