BDS — 24 June 2013


South Africa has become the first African country to ban the false labelling of Israeli settlement goods! Thank you to all those who supported our campaign to achieve this!

Settlement good labels, South Africa 2013






About Author


(6) Readers Comments

  1. In my opinion the labeling is still false, these are not Israeli goods, under the Hague Regulation 55 the military Commander of the occupied territories is only regarded as the administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate,forests and agricultural estates, it must safeguard the capital of these properties and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. The commander must act only within the narrow parameters of International law. Under the Hague Regulations 1907 and the Geneva conventions 1949, the occupant is allowed to sell crops and minerals [using local labour] for 2 reasons only;
    1/ Military needs and/or
    2 To benefit the local protected population.
    Not the settlers obviously, their illegal presence does not cover the legal definition of protected persons under international law as defined by article 4 of the Geneva conventions. Many UN resolutions have determined that the minerals in question are the natural resources of the Palestinian people, just like UN resolution 1483 recognized that all receipts from the Iraq oil sector, [when Iraq was occupied by the US/UK coalition], would only be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Halliburton and company may well have brought Iraqs oil on stream, but no way could it be described as a US product. Since the sale of these minerals are not for military purposes and do not benefit the Palestinians in any way [on the contrary their resources are being stolen] the whole settlement enterprise is a well documented war crime [Geneva 49.6] and as such the labeling should not describe the goods as Israeli, to do so is to acquiesce in the many and ongoing crimes of the Israeli state.

  2. The Minister has interpreted and prescribed West Bank as the place or country of origin of the Ahava product as described in 24.[4][c] of the Consumer protection Act 2008,however section 24 [5] states The producer or importer of any goods that have been proscribed in terms of subsection [4] MUST apply a trade description to those goods, disclosing-
    [a] the country of origin of the goods; and
    [b] any other prescribed information.
    The West Bank is not a country, the South African Government has recognized Palestine as a member state at the UN, therefore in my opinion, and so as not to confuse consumers and comply with the clear provisions of the act, also the World Trade Organizations Rules of origin, Palestine not West Bank is the correct legal term that should be used to describe the products origin.

  3. The labels are not what Open Shuhada Street called for, which was Product of an Illegal Israeli Settlement. We can only speculate that the Israeli and Zionist lobby managed to get the government to water down the wording. However, Israel has still been forced to acknowledge its legitimate borders.

  4. In International law the South African Government must not recognize an unlawful situation [as an example the Namibia case at the International Court of Justice]. In December 1981 the UNSC passed a resolution, 497, which declared that the acquisition of territory by force was inadmissible and that Israels decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the Golan Heights is null and void and without legal effect.
    The South African Consumer Protection Act 2008 at 24 [5] requires the country of Origin on any labeling, the Golan Heights is not a country, Syria [country code SY] is the Internationally recognized sovereign over the Golan Heights, simply to describe on the labeling Golan Heights, Israeli goods would, in my opinion be misleading and also in clear breach of section 24[5] of the 2008 Act and International law.

  5. Just to add to the above , here in the UK our Consumer protection laws are similar to yours, in a guidance note put out by the Food Standards Agency, they say where the label carries other information that may imply origin, the actual country of origin declaration should be sufficiently prominent, precise and compelling to correct any potentially misleading impression. Golan Heights is not a country and Israeli goods implies?? All very misleading.

  6. Pingback: What now after SA announced special labels for settlement produce? | marthiemombergblog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>