Wednesday, December 22, 2010

This Wouldn't Be Apartheid, Would It?

My Right Word

The European Union said on Wednesday that it had agreed with the Palestinian Authority to import fruit, vegetables, oils and fish products from Gaza and West Bank duty free for up to 10 years.

The deal affects relatively small volumes of trade. EU imports from Gaza and the West Bank were worth 6.1 million euros ($8.02 million) in 2009 and were mostly early potatoes, oils and seeds such as soya and sunflower seeds, according to EU data.

To protect EU farmers, fruit and vegetables enter the EU at a minimum import price or face duties. "Further opening to the EU market is expected to support the development of the economy of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through increased export performance," the EU's executive Commission, which negotiates trade on behalf of the bloc, said in a statement.

The deal aims to benefit only Palestinian products, the Commission said -- a reference to the thorny issue of farm goods from Jewish settlements in the disputed territories, which previously benefitted from EU concessions to Palestine.

"We are aware that the true origin is a potential problem, so we shall be watching that closely," said Commission spokesman Roger Waite.

So, let me get this straight, the previous 'discrimination' (which really wasn't discrimination, perhaps preferential treatement) will be corrected by a new 'discrimination' and moreover, the same land and soil will be subjected to a different relationship based on the ethnicity of the farmer growing the produce.

That wouldn't be apartheid, would it?


Anonymous said...

The difference is that the settlements are illegal by international law and this is a way to condemn that. The EU is a strong believer in International law and would like to see it implemented wherever possible. But then again, I'm talking to an unreasonable zionist who would love to see all Palestinians out of "Judea and Samaria" ...

GS Don Morris, Ph.D./Chana Givon said...

Anonymous-where do you read your "facts"? I understand your "talking points" and I note you use rhetoric presented by certain governments. If you would do your research properly you would find international law on the side of Israel. I realize this does not support your narrative. Furthermore, you use the old word smith trick of name calling and follow it with an unsubstantiated claim. I note you did not dispute the writer's claim-did you? It seems that when one of us challenges the myth of "illegal occupation" ignorant statements always follow those who dislike Israel-to be expected.