|
Boycott, Divestment And Sanctions
Despite its utter cruelty and destructiveness Israel is far from achieving its goal of ethnic cleansing Gaza. It also has not even dared yet to attack Hizbullah in south Lebanon. This while Zionists settlers had to move out of the areas surrounding Gaza and from the ground near to the Lebanese border.
Netanyahoo is in a trap. He has to 'do something' to allow for the return of the internal refugees to their homes. But any action towards that will cause more death of his troops and may well hurt Israel's strategic viability.
It seems that the Zionist idea of a settler colony exclusively for Jews is coming, slowly but surely, to its inevitable end.
There have long be signs of this. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign (BDS) against Israel has been continuously growing.
I remember that some decades ago groceries in Germany were selling 'Jaffa oranges'. These were from Israel – good fruits by the way – but already back then a constant and more or less silent campaign was underway to shun Israeli products. 'Jaffa oranges' are no longer marketed here. I presume that are now used to produce orange juice which can be sold without naming the country from where the fruits in the juice came from.
There were other failed attempts to sell Israeli produce into European markets. A year or two ago some local Aldi store had potatoes for sale with the country of origin marked as 'Israel/Germany'. I talked to the sales manager and protested against that designation. He admitted that it was wrong to use two origins for one product but complained that if he would label the origin as 'Israel' nobody would buy them.
I have since seen no potatoes from Israel.
People check the country of origin when they buy tangerines. Others check the first three numbers of the barcode on canned products. Anything that starts with 729 comes from a company registered in Israel. I don't buy those neither should you.
During my time as an IT executive I had worked with network managers who would shun any equipment from Israel. Not only because there was a high risk that it could be used for espionage but out of principle concern over Israeli policies.
Back in October Starbucks had sued Workers United – the union organizing its employees — because the union had posted a pro-Palestinian message on social media. The result was a global call to boycott Starbucks. Its success is astonishing:
World's biggest coffee chain cuts sales forecast and misses market expectations amid boycotts – MSN, Jan 31 2024
The world's biggest coffee chain told investors on Tuesday night there was a "significant impact on traffic and sales" in the Middle East due to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
The impact was also felt in the US as boycotts of the chain took place, chief executive Laxman Narasimhan told attendees of a post-quarterly earnings conference call.
Some had avoided Starbucks in the Middle East and US after it took legal action in October against Workers United for using Starbucks's name and similar logo.
A post from the union's social media account in October expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people before being deleted.
Boycotting Israel related products is the one small thing each and everyone of us can do without much effort of strain.
Over time it will be successful.
For now I’ll only make a quick mention of the most enormous fraud that has ever been used to rob humanity and that is of course the fact that rather than the peoples’ governments rightfully, sanely, sensibly holding the power to issue the countries’ credit (= debt) we have allowed that power to be given free-gratis and for no reason to a small number of private persons, mostly jewish, yes, who issue many nations’ credit and charge the world’s working families interest (that is never created) to use our own money. Most people are totally unaware of this and would be shocked to learn it, especially about how much less expensive everything could always have been.
But in trying to keep more strictly on topic:
In addition to increasing our boycotting, we can all keep reminding others of another very big thing being neglected: it has long been illegal according to many, er, accords and such to arm “israel” in the first place. please read this:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/11/19/stop-arming-israel/
and explore the many great links? One of them leads to this:
https://www.wilpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/SIGN-ON-statement_-Ending-complicity-to-international-crimes_-a-two-way-arms-embargo-on-Israel.pdf
a snip:
International legal obligations relating to arms transfers
Among the applicable international legal obligations:
Customary international law
Pursuant to customary international law, as largely codified in the International Law
Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful
Acts of 2001, a State that aids or assists another State in the commission of an
internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if: (a)
that State does so with the knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally
wrongful act; and (b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State
(Article 16).
This applies to arms transfers, as well as to other forms of support that make a significant
contribution to the unlawful act(s) such as logistical, technical or financial support,
intelligence, or provision of other equipment.
International Humanitarian Law
Common Article 1 to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 places a standing obligation
on States to “respect and ensure respect” for the Conventions’ protections in all
circumstances. In its authoritative commentary to Common Article 1, the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) explains that the Article 1 obligation requires, inter
alia, that States “refrain from transferring weapons if there is an expectation, based on
facts or knowledge of past patterns, that the weapons would be used to violate the
Conventions.”
Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)
The express purpose of the ATT was to prevent and reduce human suffering by
establishing common international standards for the transfer of conventional weapons. Its
Preamble refers to the obligations to respect and ensure respect for International
Humanitarian Law and to respect and ensure respect for human rights.
Under Article 6(3) of the ATT, States Parties undertake not to authorise any transfer of
conventional arms if they have knowledge at the time of authorisation that arms or items
would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches
of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians
protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which
they are a Party.
Under Articles 7 and 11, State Parties undertake not to authorise any export of
conventional arms, munitions, parts and components that would, inter alia, undermine
peace and security or be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian
law and international human rights law.
EU Common Position on Arms Exports 2008/944/CFSP
European Union (EU) Member States are also bound by the terms of the Council
Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 as common rules governing the
control of exports of military technology and equipment, and are, inter alia, required to
“deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment
to be exported might be used in the commission of serious violations of international
humanitarian law.”
OSCE Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) members, which include
the US , are required to adhere to the OSCE Principles Governing Conventional Arms
Transfers (OSCE Principles) in their arms export decisions. Principle 4 requires States to
“promote and, by means of an effective national control mechanism, exercise due
restraint in the transfer of conventional arms and related technology.” In order to give
effect to that principle, States “will take into account” a number of factors in considering
any proposed arms exports. They are then required to avoid any transfers which breach
any or all of the OSCE criteria contained within the OSCE Principles.
It is clear that the continued supply of arms exports and military aid to Israel is in violation of all these obligations. Over the years, unchecked and in many cases arguably internationally
unlawful military support to Israel has also enabled, facilitated and maintained Israel’s
decades-long settler-colonial and apartheid regime imposed over the Palestinian people as a
whole.
————-
much more at the links that reminds that arming “israel” has been illegal since long before South Africa took “israel” to the ICJ re the genocide of the Palestinian people. Is it what I first mentioned above that prevents international LAW from being applied whenever the criminals are “israel” and the bankster-funded western imperialists?
Posted by: DuchessAndBob | Feb 2 2024 17:56 utc | 57
|
