jcl-be
3 oktober 2004, 23:45
Europe colludes in Israeli trade scams
The EU bans trading with 'illegal' Jewish settlements, but accepts
their goods under Israeli guise, says Brian Whitaker
Monday April 23, 2001
Last Wednesday, a fax arrived at the Guardian - and no doubt, other
British newspapers - from the foreign office. It was deemed so
important that an official even phoned to check we had received it.
The fax was a statement from the foreign secretary, Robin Cook. "I
have today spoken to Israeli and Palestinian leaders to urge both
sides to do all they can to avoid confrontation," it began.
You can guess the rest: "negotiations... restraint... an end to
violence... return to peace talks... restraint... negotiating table...
restraint... peace talks" and so on. All very reasonable and British,
but hopelessly ineffectual.
On the same day, the European Union joined in the chorus. Everyone
agreed with the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who in a rare
outburst the previous day had condemned Israeli action against the
Palestinians as "excessive and disproportionate".
The only difference between the Americans and the Europeans was that
it took the Europeans an extra day to get around to saying it.
This helps to explain why the US has dominated the Middle East peace
process for so long (with disastrous effects), while Europe, which
might play an important and useful role, has been left dithering on
the sidelines.
Europe, unlike the US, does not have a single foreign policy but its
15 member states try establish common ground where they can. That
leads to the sort of vacuous statements issued by Britain and the rest
of Europe last week, without any serious prospect of action to back
them up.
In the recent UN security council vote on sending an international
observer "force" (terrifyingly armed with notebooks and pencils) to
the Middle East, the four European members - Britain, France, Ireland
and Norway - abstained. Although the US vetoed the plan anyway,
Europe's abstention, in the view of many people, encouraged the
Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to believe he could escalate the
violence with impunity.
Surprising as it may seem, Europe has as much economic muscle in the
region as the United States. European money keeps the Palestinian
Authority alive and Europe is Israel's most valuable trading partner.
Israel earns around $14bn (£9.7bn) a year from Europe - one-third of
its total exports. Europe could use this influence towards achieving a
just peace - if only the member countries agreed on a course of
action.
Last week, France hinted at economic measures to show European
disapproval of Israel's policies and EU foreign ministers may discuss
it further when they meet in Brussels on May 14.
One option would be to cancel or suspend the trade agreement which,
since 1975, has allowed Israeli goods to enter Europe on preferential
terms. Any decision to do that would have to be unanimous and, on past
form, there is no chance of it happening.
There is, however, an interesting alternative which does not require a
political decision, merely an administrative decision of the kind that
no reasonable person can disagree with: to clamp down on fraud.
One of the great unpublicised scandals of the EU is that Israel has
been cheating on the trade agreement for years and depriving the EU of
revenue in the process. It is known, for example, that Israel has
imported Brazilian orange juice, labelled it as Israeli and sent it on
to Europe - thus allowing the Brazilians to evade European taxes.
The preferential terms under the agreement apply to goods produced
wholly or substantially in "the territory of the state of Israel".
Europe has a similar agreement with the Palestinians, but by
controlling exports from the occupied territories, the Israelis bar
the Palestinians from making use of it.
Jars of Palestinian pickle, for instance, are handed over to the
Israelis who stick a "Made in Israel" label on them and export them to
Europe. Flowers grown by Palestinians in Gaza, strawberries, oranges,
lemons and aubergines are all sent to Israel, mixed with Israeli
produce and exported to Europe with Israeli certificates of origin.
In 1998 a Palestinian grower told the European commission that he
allowed his flowers to change their nationality in order to avoid the
risk of damage and delay "as a result of Israeli treatment of
Palestinian produce". This was a polite way of referring to the
Israeli authorities' practice of thrusting metal spikes through boxes
of Palestinian flowers, rendering them unsaleable. Ostensibly this is
done for security reasons.
Israeli companies import leather from Europe and pass it to
Palestinian companies, who turn it into shoes and jackets. The
Palestinians pass the goods back to the Israelis, who then send them
to Europe as Israeli products. The point of this is that Israeli
importers and exporters cream off a percentage that would otherwise
have gone to Palestinians.
Another - politically more serious - fraud arises because produce from
Jewish settlements in the occupied territories is not covered by trade
agreements with Europe and is therefore not entitled to preferential
treatment.
Europe has made its view of the settlements extremely clear.
"Settlements change the physical character and demographic composition
of the occupied territories. All settlement activities are illegal and
constitute a major obstacle to peace," a statement from EU presidency
said recently.
But what Europe says and does are two different things. By allowing
settlement products to be imported under an Israeli guise, Europe
helps to keep the settlements in business.
The more farsighted Israelis recognise this as an obstacle to peace.
The Gush Shalom organisation, for example, urges Israelis themselve to
boycott settlement produce, under the slogan, "A penny to the
settlements is a penny against peace."
In some cases there is no attempt to disguise the origin of these
products. The Golan Heights Winery exports 38% of all "Israeli" wine -
from vineyards on occupied Syrian land. It markets them under the
labels "Yarden", "Gamla", and "Golan", and the company's website lists
distributors in nine European countries, including House of Hallgarten
in Luton.
Ahava produces bath salts and cosmetics from the Dead sea on the
occupied West Bank. Its website lists outlets in Belgium, Germany,
Italy and the United Kingdom (including Selfridges in London). Other
products would not be difficult to track down: a long list is
published on Gush Shalom's website.
The EU has known about this for a long time but it held off taking
action on the grounds that there was no point in making a fuss while
peace seemed imminent. But in the last few months that has changed and
peace seems further away than ever. Action now could help to get it
back on course.
Email
[email protected]
Source :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,477171,00.html
--
"I personally would prefer Kucinich above everybody, and it may be
that in the next election in four years’ time Kucinich will be the
one. But obviously he is too radical for the present America, and he
would not win. But Kerry has every chance of winning. He is a decent
man, a good man, has good intentions and is worth voting for." -
Benjamin Creme - Share International
http://www.shareintl.org/magazine/SI_current.htm#master
The EU bans trading with 'illegal' Jewish settlements, but accepts
their goods under Israeli guise, says Brian Whitaker
Monday April 23, 2001
Last Wednesday, a fax arrived at the Guardian - and no doubt, other
British newspapers - from the foreign office. It was deemed so
important that an official even phoned to check we had received it.
The fax was a statement from the foreign secretary, Robin Cook. "I
have today spoken to Israeli and Palestinian leaders to urge both
sides to do all they can to avoid confrontation," it began.
You can guess the rest: "negotiations... restraint... an end to
violence... return to peace talks... restraint... negotiating table...
restraint... peace talks" and so on. All very reasonable and British,
but hopelessly ineffectual.
On the same day, the European Union joined in the chorus. Everyone
agreed with the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who in a rare
outburst the previous day had condemned Israeli action against the
Palestinians as "excessive and disproportionate".
The only difference between the Americans and the Europeans was that
it took the Europeans an extra day to get around to saying it.
This helps to explain why the US has dominated the Middle East peace
process for so long (with disastrous effects), while Europe, which
might play an important and useful role, has been left dithering on
the sidelines.
Europe, unlike the US, does not have a single foreign policy but its
15 member states try establish common ground where they can. That
leads to the sort of vacuous statements issued by Britain and the rest
of Europe last week, without any serious prospect of action to back
them up.
In the recent UN security council vote on sending an international
observer "force" (terrifyingly armed with notebooks and pencils) to
the Middle East, the four European members - Britain, France, Ireland
and Norway - abstained. Although the US vetoed the plan anyway,
Europe's abstention, in the view of many people, encouraged the
Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to believe he could escalate the
violence with impunity.
Surprising as it may seem, Europe has as much economic muscle in the
region as the United States. European money keeps the Palestinian
Authority alive and Europe is Israel's most valuable trading partner.
Israel earns around $14bn (£9.7bn) a year from Europe - one-third of
its total exports. Europe could use this influence towards achieving a
just peace - if only the member countries agreed on a course of
action.
Last week, France hinted at economic measures to show European
disapproval of Israel's policies and EU foreign ministers may discuss
it further when they meet in Brussels on May 14.
One option would be to cancel or suspend the trade agreement which,
since 1975, has allowed Israeli goods to enter Europe on preferential
terms. Any decision to do that would have to be unanimous and, on past
form, there is no chance of it happening.
There is, however, an interesting alternative which does not require a
political decision, merely an administrative decision of the kind that
no reasonable person can disagree with: to clamp down on fraud.
One of the great unpublicised scandals of the EU is that Israel has
been cheating on the trade agreement for years and depriving the EU of
revenue in the process. It is known, for example, that Israel has
imported Brazilian orange juice, labelled it as Israeli and sent it on
to Europe - thus allowing the Brazilians to evade European taxes.
The preferential terms under the agreement apply to goods produced
wholly or substantially in "the territory of the state of Israel".
Europe has a similar agreement with the Palestinians, but by
controlling exports from the occupied territories, the Israelis bar
the Palestinians from making use of it.
Jars of Palestinian pickle, for instance, are handed over to the
Israelis who stick a "Made in Israel" label on them and export them to
Europe. Flowers grown by Palestinians in Gaza, strawberries, oranges,
lemons and aubergines are all sent to Israel, mixed with Israeli
produce and exported to Europe with Israeli certificates of origin.
In 1998 a Palestinian grower told the European commission that he
allowed his flowers to change their nationality in order to avoid the
risk of damage and delay "as a result of Israeli treatment of
Palestinian produce". This was a polite way of referring to the
Israeli authorities' practice of thrusting metal spikes through boxes
of Palestinian flowers, rendering them unsaleable. Ostensibly this is
done for security reasons.
Israeli companies import leather from Europe and pass it to
Palestinian companies, who turn it into shoes and jackets. The
Palestinians pass the goods back to the Israelis, who then send them
to Europe as Israeli products. The point of this is that Israeli
importers and exporters cream off a percentage that would otherwise
have gone to Palestinians.
Another - politically more serious - fraud arises because produce from
Jewish settlements in the occupied territories is not covered by trade
agreements with Europe and is therefore not entitled to preferential
treatment.
Europe has made its view of the settlements extremely clear.
"Settlements change the physical character and demographic composition
of the occupied territories. All settlement activities are illegal and
constitute a major obstacle to peace," a statement from EU presidency
said recently.
But what Europe says and does are two different things. By allowing
settlement products to be imported under an Israeli guise, Europe
helps to keep the settlements in business.
The more farsighted Israelis recognise this as an obstacle to peace.
The Gush Shalom organisation, for example, urges Israelis themselve to
boycott settlement produce, under the slogan, "A penny to the
settlements is a penny against peace."
In some cases there is no attempt to disguise the origin of these
products. The Golan Heights Winery exports 38% of all "Israeli" wine -
from vineyards on occupied Syrian land. It markets them under the
labels "Yarden", "Gamla", and "Golan", and the company's website lists
distributors in nine European countries, including House of Hallgarten
in Luton.
Ahava produces bath salts and cosmetics from the Dead sea on the
occupied West Bank. Its website lists outlets in Belgium, Germany,
Italy and the United Kingdom (including Selfridges in London). Other
products would not be difficult to track down: a long list is
published on Gush Shalom's website.
The EU has known about this for a long time but it held off taking
action on the grounds that there was no point in making a fuss while
peace seemed imminent. But in the last few months that has changed and
peace seems further away than ever. Action now could help to get it
back on course.
[email protected]
Source :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,477171,00.html
--
"I personally would prefer Kucinich above everybody, and it may be
that in the next election in four years’ time Kucinich will be the
one. But obviously he is too radical for the present America, and he
would not win. But Kerry has every chance of winning. He is a decent
man, a good man, has good intentions and is worth voting for." -
Benjamin Creme - Share International
http://www.shareintl.org/magazine/SI_current.htm#master