Former US President Carter Calls For EU Labelling Of Goods From Illegal Israeli Settlements

[Purveyor]

The EU should move to introduce proper labelling of goods produced on illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, former US president Jimmy Carter and fellow members of the Elders, an independent group of global leaders, urged during a visit to Dublin yesterday.

Mr Carter was speaking after he and fellow Elders including Ireland’s former president Mary Robinson and former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso held a meeting with diplomats from some 20 European countries to discuss the EU’s role in helping revive the moribund Middle East peace process.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Eamon Gilmore was also in attendance, as were representatives from NGOs including Irish aid agency Trócaire which has campaigned for a Europe-wide boycott of goods produced in West Bank settlements.

“With the Middle East peace process making no significant progress, we call on Europe to play a stronger and more independent role in revitalising peace efforts, with a fresh approach,” said Mr Carter. “The EU has repeatedly condemned settlement expansion in the West Bank. It could therefore introduce a clear labelling of products made in Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.”

MORE...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/former-us-president-carter-calls-for-eu-labelling-of-goods-from-illegal-israeli-settlements-1.1389313

[byeya]

1. I didn't think he did a good job as president but he's a great ex-president. He's very involved

with world affairs and lands on the right side more often than he lands on the wrong side.

[delrem]

11. Jimmy Carter's was a road not taken, and we suffer enormously.

A b-team movie/tv actor took his place, while the backroom managers were orchestrating "arms for hostages".
So, how many wars did Reagan initiate? How many bloodcurdling central and south american dictatorships did he honor?

My heart fell when Carter lost to such weasels, introducing the world to McWar inc., something broke off and I don't think it'll every be replaced.

[oberliner]

2. President Carter is on the money as usual

Just like when he said the following:

"Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew."

God bless former President Carter. Would that more people could embrace his perspective.

[Purveyor]

4. Indeed. One of his best books is "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". I trust you concur... eom

[oberliner]

5. Absolutely

He always would remind people that misunderstood the book (and the title) to remember the presence of the word "not" and to remember that he wasn't describing Israel.

To wit:

My new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/12/israel.politicsphilosophyandsociety

I share his disdain for the occupation, and I support (as he does so fervently) the Geneva Initiative.

[Jefferson23]

6. His critics in Israel and the U.S. do not approve of his opinion, period:

**In many ways, this is more oppressive than what black people lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonise choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the casualties on both sides.

Also:
Jimmy Carter Defends 'Peace Not Apartheid'
January 25, 2007 3:43 PM

Mr. President, perhaps I could begin with the title of your book, which has caused a bit of debate. Could you just make, briefly, the best case you can for why "apartheid" is the best word to use?

Well, I'll try to make a perfect case. Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it's based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land. It's not based on racism. Those caveats are clearly made in the book. This is a word that's a very accurate description of the forced separation within the West Bank of Israelis from Palestinians and the total domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7004473

[oberliner]

7. That's what makes them critics

I like that citation you included. Very instructive:

"It's not based on racism."

Would that such a simple, factual statement from President Carter could be embraced more fully by his critics on the other side of the spectrum.

[Jefferson23]

8. This is what his critics do not accept, just in case you misunderstood his meaning:

Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it's based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land.

You'll have to speak with B'Tselem about the racism not relevant, they have documented it extensively.

[oberliner]

9. Wrong critics

I am talking about the critics on the other side.

His meaning is clear. "Not based on racism."

Clearly you are one of the "other side" critics of former President Carter.

[Jefferson23]

10. Clearly, you're spinning out of control. Hopefully you're enjoying the pretense. n/t

[oberliner]

13. Not sure what you mean

I am just saying I agree with President Carter's remarks.

You have indicated that you do not.

[Jefferson23]

16. Your spin begins in your post #5.

What you'd like to ignore, from Carter: Mr. President, perhaps I could begin with the title of your book, which has caused a bit of debate. Could you just make, briefly, the best case you can for why "apartheid" is the best word to use?

Well, I'll try to make a perfect case. Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it's based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land. It's not based on racism. Those caveats are clearly made in the book. This is a word that's a very accurate description of the forced separation within the West Bank of Israelis from Palestinians and the total domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7004473

Good to know you ignore B'Tselem's documentation on Israel's governments racist policies.

[oberliner]

17. I don't want to ignore that at all

The entire settlement enterprise is an abomination.

It's just not based on racism.

[Jefferson23]

19. Your post#5 indicated a spin suggesting Carter did not mean the word apartheid applies.

He is clear why he used the word and how it is applicable to Israel in his answer that I posted.

[oberliner]

20. He meant it and was clear about why he used it

He also went out of his way repeatedly to set people straight when they misinterpreted his meaning.

He has consistently said the same thing about Israel proper. Namely:

“I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew. And so I very carefully avoided talking about anything inside Israel.”

[Jefferson23]

21. You approve of his use of the word apartheid, many do not despite any distinction he has made.

He recognizes much more than you elude to: Often excluded from their former homes, land, and places of worship, protesting Palestinians have been severely dominated and oppressed. There is forced segregation between Israeli settlers and Palestine's citizens, with a complex pass system required for Arabs to traverse Israel's multiple checkpoints.

Among other points: The Palestinian people are now being deprived of the necessities of life by economic restrictions imposed on them by Israel and the United States because 42 percent voted for Hamas candidates in this year's election. Teachers, nurses, policemen, firemen and other employees cannot be paid, and the UN has reported food supplies in Gaza equivalent to those among the poorest families in sub-Sahara Africa, with half the families surviving on one meal a day.

Mahmoud Abbas, first as prime minister and now as president of the Palestinian National Authority and leader of the PLO, has sought to negotiate with Israel for almost six years, without success. Hamas leaders support such negotiations, promising to accept the results if approved by a Palestinian referendum.

*Carter has said that debate on Israel-related issues is muffled in the US media by lobbying efforts of the pro-Israel lobby: "[M]any controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. . . . This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee [sic] and the absence of any significant contrary voices."[4][23] He stresses that through the debate among others that he hopes this book will stimulate and through his own related public-speaking and media appearances, he hopes to tear down the "impenetrable wall" that stops the people of the US from seeing the plight of Palestinians.[4][23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine:_Peace_Not_Apartheid#cite_note-LifeAndTimesTranscript-5

[oberliner]

22. I don't approve or disapprove

Personally, it's not a term I would use because of the racial connotations, but I guess for some folks the word's meaning has evolved over the years.

I think the content of the book is much more important than the title (which, regrettably, seemed to have been what got most of the attention when it came out).

President Carter has been a tireless fighter for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and his book primarily focuses on how to achieve that goal.

He understands the complexity and the realities of the situation in a much more nuanced way than the more strident and shrill bloggers and commentators.

I definitely urge folks to read his book if they haven't already.

[Jefferson23]

23. You don't approve or disapprove? He did not use the word lightly and the content of the

book not exclusive to the title has distressed many pro-Israeli supporters...to say the least.

Some actually believe it is anti-semitic to apply the term apartheid on any level to Israel.

[oberliner]

24. Not really

As I said, it's not the title that I would have chosen, but I can understand why he chose it. He said he wanted to spark discussion and choosing a title like that certainly accomplished that goal. If the title got more people to pay attention to the book, then that's a good thing.

Again, however, I think the content of the book is much more important than the title.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of what was written in the book has been ignored in favor of back-and-forth about one word in the title.

[Jefferson23]

25. He used the word because he believes it appicable, oberliner.

Carter:In many ways, this is more oppressive than what black people lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonise choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the casualties on both sides.

Carter: Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it's based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land.


The vast majority of what he wrote aside from the title has been ignored by pro-Israel groups, their lobby organizations and Israel's elected officials.

They do not appreciate him, period.

If you would not have chosen the word apartheid it is because you do not believe it fits the dynamic, he disagrees.
To suggest he used it and does not believe it is applicable but only did so to create controversy is spinning, by you.

His book takes many positions pro-Israel groups do not accept as sound advice, especially regarding Hamas and
the Israel lobby.

As you say in your post #2, he is on the money as usual.

You support this action that he supports in the OP,..interesting. You support all his other descriptions of the Israeli
government actions stated in his book, interesting.

[oberliner]

26. That's what you say

That's not what he says.

"Well, he [Dershowitz] has to go to the first word in the title, which is "Palestine," not "Israel." He should go to the second word in the title, which is "Peace." And then the last two words [are] "Not Apartheid." I never have alleged in the book or otherwise that Israel, as a nation, was guilty of apartheid."

I agree with much of what you've written here - I just think you are oddly fixated on the title for reasons I do not fully understand.

His book takes many positions BDS/One-State groups do not accept as sound advice either.
In fact, he's been thrown under the bus by many such supporters.

[Jefferson23]

27. No, it is what Carter has said:

Mr. President, perhaps I could begin with the title of your book, which has caused a bit of debate. Could you just make, briefly, the best case you can for why "apartheid" is the best word to use?

Well, I'll try to make a perfect case. Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it's based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land. It's not based on racism. Those caveats are clearly made in the book. This is a word that's a very accurate description of the forced separation within the West Bank of Israelis from Palestinians and the total domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7004473


Please link who threw him under the bus other than pro-Israel supporters.

I am interested in your continual spin....not a fixation about the title.


btw, oberliner. The snip of quote you keep relying on and which you did not link to, you posted it incompletely.

Well, he [Dershowitz] has to go to the first word in the title, which is "Palestine," not "Israel." He should go to the second word in the title, which is "Peace." And then the last two words [are] "Not Apartheid." I never have alleged in the book or otherwise that Israel, as a nation, was guilty of apartheid. But there is a clear distinction between the policies within the nation of Israel and within the occupied territories that Israel controls[,] and the oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli forces in the occupied territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. . . . (Italics added.)[62]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Palestine:_Peace_Not_Apartheid#cite_note-king-62

[oberliner]

28. Not sure what you are saying "no" to

You included the same quote I did, but oddly chose to link it to Wikipedia?

I took it from a CNN interview:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/27/lkl.01.html

That is a direct transcript of what President Carter said in the interview. Nothing was incompletely posted. It was a paragraph from the interview with Larry King.

If people want to read the full interview, I encourage them to do so above.

[delrem]

29. OK, I did.

Thanks for the link.

It was the most massaging of softball questions that King put to Carter, coming back time after time to Carter's triumph in helping negotiate a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. The chorus.

heh...
and Iran worked out arms for hostages with Reagan, to help unseat him.

I'm not impressed with how he deals with questions related to W's policies. I'm fricken astounded at how he, supposing that we should take it as a credulous statement, says "The key to the Arab world is probably within the Arab League, where with the leadership of people like Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and others in the Arab kingdoms, collectively they could be a very positive force."

A positive force for what??? These are despots, totally jaded and unlettered in anything but self indulgence.
They are, in how they present themselves to the world, frauds. So why would Carter gratuitously give them a shout out?

As they say: just askin

[Jefferson23]

30. You posted only an excerpt, irrelevant not odd that I posted the remainder from wiki.

Your spinning continues and you know very well what the distinction is and you're
not unsure of what I said no to, oberliner.

Your Post #26, It is what you say ( your claim, oberliner )

No, it is what Carter has stated, not my interpretation of anything. He used the word apartheid and indicates quite
clearly why it applies. He does this in your link, but one would not be aware of this unless they went to the link as
you left out this part: But there is a clear distinction between the policies within the nation of Israel and within the occupied territories that Israel controls and the oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli forces in the occupied territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. . . . (Italics added.)


Mr. President, perhaps I could begin with the title of your book, which has caused a bit of debate. Could you just make, briefly, the best case you can for why "apartheid" is the best word to use?

Well, I'll try to make a perfect case. Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it's based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land. It's not based on racism. Those caveats are clearly made in the book. This is a word that's a very accurate description of the forced separation within the West Bank of Israelis from Palestinians and the total domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7004473

[oberliner]

31. Thanks for posting that

He very clearly states that Israeli policy in the West Bank is not based on racism, and I agree with him.

[Jefferson23]

32. In a backdoor sort of way you support Carter but with numerous exceptions.

Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)

That much is finally clear.


on edit for clarity.

[oberliner]

33. Front door support

I am 100 percent behind Carter's proposal for peace in the region and have contributed both time and money to help the cause.

I would encourage you to do the same:

DONATE TO THE GENEVA INITIATIVE

Your contributions will make a real difference and help us implement activities promoting dialogue and agreement as means of putting an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://www.geneva-accord.org/component/option,com_dtdonate/Itemid,286/index.php?option=com_dtdonate&task=pre_paypal&Itemid=286

[Jefferson23]

34. Uh huh. This does not change anything you have posted regarding your differences of

opinion with Carter on Israeli policy and it's continued treatment of the Palestinians.

[azurnoir]

18. Thank you

[azurnoir]

3. Labeling settlement goods as such is simply honest labeling nothing more nothing less

labels that claim goods made in the occupied territories as being made in Israel are quite simply dishonest, but perhaps quite revealing, as those labels make very plain that the settlements are already considered by those who live in them, and those who approve of this practice as being Israel, it's a sort of commercial annexation

[bravenak]

12. Why should the goods not be labeled correctly?

We make a big deal if you label products made in USA if they're not.
This should be a no brainer.
Commercial annexation. That sounds accurate.

[Scurrilous]

14. K & R

[King_David]

15. Good to see you posting here again,

What do you think of the OP opinion piece ?

[azurnoir]

35. labeling called Nazi style boycott

The German Green party is under fire because of its push in the Bundestag to label Israeli products from the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

Leading German politicians and academic specialists weighed in last week, accusing the Greens of promoting Nazi-style boycotts of Jewish products and ignoring the lessons of the Holocaust.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Politicians-slam-German-Greens-for-Israel-boycott-314363