|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:28 oneofthem wrote:
country of origin is a technical determination or value, whether it needs to be slapped onto every product as a sticker with occupied territories spelled out is a different question.
for example if u want to determine customs standard, u need origin. but that doesnt need a label on every piece of product to the consumer. the measure is supposed one that exists to inform consumers, but whether its interest served in this respect is important enough to sustain the clear negative market impact is the important wto question. But it is not what the ruling is about. The ruling is not about forcing goods to have label, it is about preventing false advertising, as most goods coming from occupied territories were label made in Israel. their solution is still requiring a sticker, which is not needed for similar occupied territories
|
On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ?
You are aware Jews live and are the overwhelming majority demographic in Israel? When you asked "what does that have to do with Jews?" were you unaware that Israel and Judaism are connected at a fundamental level and that connection influences politics?
|
On November 13 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Because it might send a very bad signal not just to Israel but also to the Jews living here. How do you think a Jewish person shopping in a German grocery store feels when they see food labeled effectively as "don't buy this, it's produced in Israel"?
The goods are not labelled "don't by this, it's produced in Israel"... Food produced in Israel is still labelled coming from Israel, or not if they want to. It's only about goods produced in occupied territory.
The boycott and the current ruling are two completly separated topic.
On November 13 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? You are aware Jews live and are the overwhelming majority demographic in Israel? When you asked "what does that have to do with Jews?" were you unaware that Israel and Judaism are connected at a fundamental level and that connection influences politics?
But what does it have to do with labelling goods coming from occupied territory ?
On November 13 2015 04:36 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? On November 13 2015 04:28 oneofthem wrote:
country of origin is a technical determination or value, whether it needs to be slapped onto every product as a sticker with occupied territories spelled out is a different question.
for example if u want to determine customs standard, u need origin. but that doesnt need a label on every piece of product to the consumer. the measure is supposed one that exists to inform consumers, but whether its interest served in this respect is important enough to sustain the clear negative market impact is the important wto question. But it is not what the ruling is about. The ruling is not about forcing goods to have label, it is about preventing false advertising, as most goods coming from occupied territories were label made in Israel. their solution is still requiring a sticker, which is not needed for similar occupied territories
Except the exemple you took - Cyprus - is not held to the same standard in regards to labelling because it is part of a freetrade agreement. Can you prove me that similar occupied territories are not held to the same standard ?
|
On November 13 2015 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Because it might send a very bad signal not just to Israel but also to the Jews living here. How do you think a Jewish person shopping in a German grocery store feels when they see food labeled effectively as "don't buy this, it's produced in Israel"? The goods are not labelled "don't by this, it's produced in Israel"... Food produced in Israel is still labelled coming from Israel, or not if they want to. It's only about goods produced in occupied territory. Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? You are aware Jews live and are the overwhelming majority demographic in Israel? When you asked "what does that have to do with Jews?" were you unaware that Israel and Judaism are connected at a fundamental level and that connection influences politics? But what does it have to do with labelling goods coming from occupied territory ?
Well Jews live in the occupied territory, so a little bit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the fta to turkey or whatever does not matter by that argument since consumers are similarly mislead.
|
On November 13 2015 04:43 oneofthem wrote:
the fta to turkey or whatever does not matter by that argument since consumers are similarly mislead.
Yeah, maybe the european commission will have to change its behavior towards those occupied territories (maybe tibet ? I don't know at all about the situation back there) but that does not mean that the current ruling is necessarily against the WTO rules of origin.
On November 13 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Because it might send a very bad signal not just to Israel but also to the Jews living here. How do you think a Jewish person shopping in a German grocery store feels when they see food labeled effectively as "don't buy this, it's produced in Israel"? The goods are not labelled "don't by this, it's produced in Israel"... Food produced in Israel is still labelled coming from Israel, or not if they want to. It's only about goods produced in occupied territory. On November 13 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? You are aware Jews live and are the overwhelming majority demographic in Israel? When you asked "what does that have to do with Jews?" were you unaware that Israel and Judaism are connected at a fundamental level and that connection influences politics? But what does it have to do with labelling goods coming from occupied territory ? Well Jews live in the occupied territory, so a little bit.
And what does it have to do with goods being labelled ? Seriously, you don't understand that the religion have nothing at all to do with that ? What the hell, is it open racism when the US enforce restriction on imported cars coming from Japan ?
|
On November 13 2015 04:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:43 oneofthem wrote:
the fta to turkey or whatever does not matter by that argument since consumers are similarly mislead. Yeah, maybe the european commission will have to change its behavior towards those occupied territories (maybe tibet ? I don't know at all about the situation back there) but that does not mean that the current ruling is necessarily against the WTO rules of origin. Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Because it might send a very bad signal not just to Israel but also to the Jews living here. How do you think a Jewish person shopping in a German grocery store feels when they see food labeled effectively as "don't buy this, it's produced in Israel"? The goods are not labelled "don't by this, it's produced in Israel"... Food produced in Israel is still labelled coming from Israel, or not if they want to. It's only about goods produced in occupied territory. On November 13 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? You are aware Jews live and are the overwhelming majority demographic in Israel? When you asked "what does that have to do with Jews?" were you unaware that Israel and Judaism are connected at a fundamental level and that connection influences politics? But what does it have to do with labelling goods coming from occupied territory ? Well Jews live in the occupied territory, so a little bit. And what does it have to do with goods being labelled ? Seriously, you don't understand that the religion have nothing at all to do with that ? What the hell, is it open racism when the US enforce restriction on imports coming from Japan ?
I never said the argument is valid, only that the it is perceived as politically motivated by Jews in the EU who side with Israel. They see the settlements as valid parts of Israel and the goods to be labels as such and not be differentiated. Not matter how logical or legally sound your argument is, the politics do not obey that reasoning. Political views are not rational actors in any way. Hence they have made their way into the EU Politics thread and someone pointed out the political reality of the labels and the ruling.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
again the problem is not their rules determining origin, left open to member states. the problem is the mandatory label requirement.
analogy
rules for determining what is a gmo
requirement for gmo labeling
u can have an 'accurate' 1 while still not allowed to do 2
|
On November 13 2015 04:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:43 oneofthem wrote:
the fta to turkey or whatever does not matter by that argument since consumers are similarly mislead. Yeah, maybe the european commission will have to change its behavior towards those occupied territories (maybe tibet ? I don't know at all about the situation back there) but that does not mean that the current ruling is necessarily against the WTO rules of origin. On November 13 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Because it might send a very bad signal not just to Israel but also to the Jews living here. How do you think a Jewish person shopping in a German grocery store feels when they see food labeled effectively as "don't buy this, it's produced in Israel"? The goods are not labelled "don't by this, it's produced in Israel"... Food produced in Israel is still labelled coming from Israel, or not if they want to. It's only about goods produced in occupied territory. On November 13 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? You are aware Jews live and are the overwhelming majority demographic in Israel? When you asked "what does that have to do with Jews?" were you unaware that Israel and Judaism are connected at a fundamental level and that connection influences politics? But what does it have to do with labelling goods coming from occupied territory ? Well Jews live in the occupied territory, so a little bit. And what does it have to do with goods being labelled ? Seriously, you don't understand that the religion have nothing at all to do with that ? What the hell, is it open racism when the US enforce restriction on imports coming from Japan ? I never said the argument is valid, only that the it is perceived as politically motivated by Jews in the EU who side with Israel. They see the settlements as valid parts of Israel and the goods to be labels as such and not be differentiated. Not matter how logical or legally sound your argument is, the politics do not obey that reasoning. Political views are not rational actors in any way. Hence they have made their way into the EU Politics thread and someone pointed out the political reality of the labels and the ruling.
"Enforcing law is open to discussion because you can hurt the feeling of the people that feel related to the people that are not respecting the law".
On November 13 2015 04:57 oneofthem wrote:
again the problem is not their rules determining origin, left open to member states. the problem is the mandatory label requirement.
analogy
rules for determining what is a gmo
requirement for gmo labeling
u can have an 'accurate' 1 while still not allowed to do 2
But it is not unlawful (as of yet) for a country to ask for gmo labeling, or even to restrict gmo from being sold on their national soil.
There are already plenty of products that are legally forced to label their origin in Europe - mostly agricultural products, and I believe this ruling at first concerned such products.
|
GMOs and Israel at the same time, you really want to bring this thread down do you oneofthem
|
On November 13 2015 04:58 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:50 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:43 oneofthem wrote:
the fta to turkey or whatever does not matter by that argument since consumers are similarly mislead. Yeah, maybe the european commission will have to change its behavior towards those occupied territories (maybe tibet ? I don't know at all about the situation back there) but that does not mean that the current ruling is necessarily against the WTO rules of origin. On November 13 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Because it might send a very bad signal not just to Israel but also to the Jews living here. How do you think a Jewish person shopping in a German grocery store feels when they see food labeled effectively as "don't buy this, it's produced in Israel"? The goods are not labelled "don't by this, it's produced in Israel"... Food produced in Israel is still labelled coming from Israel, or not if they want to. It's only about goods produced in occupied territory. On November 13 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? You are aware Jews live and are the overwhelming majority demographic in Israel? When you asked "what does that have to do with Jews?" were you unaware that Israel and Judaism are connected at a fundamental level and that connection influences politics? But what does it have to do with labelling goods coming from occupied territory ? Well Jews live in the occupied territory, so a little bit. And what does it have to do with goods being labelled ? Seriously, you don't understand that the religion have nothing at all to do with that ? What the hell, is it open racism when the US enforce restriction on imports coming from Japan ? I never said the argument is valid, only that the it is perceived as politically motivated by Jews in the EU who side with Israel. They see the settlements as valid parts of Israel and the goods to be labels as such and not be differentiated. Not matter how logical or legally sound your argument is, the politics do not obey that reasoning. Political views are not rational actors in any way. Hence they have made their way into the EU Politics thread and someone pointed out the political reality of the labels and the ruling. "Enforcing law is open to discussion because you can hurt the feeling of the people that feel related to the people that are not respecting the law". Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:57 oneofthem wrote:
again the problem is not their rules determining origin, left open to member states. the problem is the mandatory label requirement.
analogy
rules for determining what is a gmo
requirement for gmo labeling
u can have an 'accurate' 1 while still not allowed to do 2 But it is not unlawful (as of yet) for a country to ask for gmo labeling, or even to restrict gmo from being sold on their national soil.
Politics are not rational. And the hurt feelings can turn into votes and lobbying, since those people are citizens of the EU. The same applies in the US, especially New York.
|
On November 13 2015 05:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 04:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:50 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:43 oneofthem wrote:
the fta to turkey or whatever does not matter by that argument since consumers are similarly mislead. Yeah, maybe the european commission will have to change its behavior towards those occupied territories (maybe tibet ? I don't know at all about the situation back there) but that does not mean that the current ruling is necessarily against the WTO rules of origin. On November 13 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Because it might send a very bad signal not just to Israel but also to the Jews living here. How do you think a Jewish person shopping in a German grocery store feels when they see food labeled effectively as "don't buy this, it's produced in Israel"? The goods are not labelled "don't by this, it's produced in Israel"... Food produced in Israel is still labelled coming from Israel, or not if they want to. It's only about goods produced in occupied territory. On November 13 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? You are aware Jews live and are the overwhelming majority demographic in Israel? When you asked "what does that have to do with Jews?" were you unaware that Israel and Judaism are connected at a fundamental level and that connection influences politics? But what does it have to do with labelling goods coming from occupied territory ? Well Jews live in the occupied territory, so a little bit. And what does it have to do with goods being labelled ? Seriously, you don't understand that the religion have nothing at all to do with that ? What the hell, is it open racism when the US enforce restriction on imports coming from Japan ? I never said the argument is valid, only that the it is perceived as politically motivated by Jews in the EU who side with Israel. They see the settlements as valid parts of Israel and the goods to be labels as such and not be differentiated. Not matter how logical or legally sound your argument is, the politics do not obey that reasoning. Political views are not rational actors in any way. Hence they have made their way into the EU Politics thread and someone pointed out the political reality of the labels and the ruling. "Enforcing law is open to discussion because you can hurt the feeling of the people that feel related to the people that are not respecting the law". On November 13 2015 04:57 oneofthem wrote:
again the problem is not their rules determining origin, left open to member states. the problem is the mandatory label requirement.
analogy
rules for determining what is a gmo
requirement for gmo labeling
u can have an 'accurate' 1 while still not allowed to do 2 But it is not unlawful (as of yet) for a country to ask for gmo labeling, or even to restrict gmo from being sold on their national soil. Politics are not rational. And the hurt feelings can turn into votes and lobbying, since those people are citizens of the EU. The same applies in the US, especially New York.
We agree about that. But the exact opposite can be said : having a preferencial/different behavior toward a certain community because it have a lobbying power can create animosity toward this very community. Listening to the feeling of a minority is not always the best behavior, and in this regard it feels forced.
And your argument is actually only true if you accept the premise that the jewish community is entirely pro israel. Most jew can do the distinction between Israel as a country and judaism. In France and in the US there are even jewish lobby that are openly against Israeli policies and for the boycott.
|
On November 13 2015 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 05:02 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:50 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:43 oneofthem wrote:
the fta to turkey or whatever does not matter by that argument since consumers are similarly mislead. Yeah, maybe the european commission will have to change its behavior towards those occupied territories (maybe tibet ? I don't know at all about the situation back there) but that does not mean that the current ruling is necessarily against the WTO rules of origin. On November 13 2015 04:40 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:37 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
Because it might send a very bad signal not just to Israel but also to the Jews living here. How do you think a Jewish person shopping in a German grocery store feels when they see food labeled effectively as "don't buy this, it's produced in Israel"? The goods are not labelled "don't by this, it's produced in Israel"... Food produced in Israel is still labelled coming from Israel, or not if they want to. It's only about goods produced in occupied territory. On November 13 2015 04:36 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2015 04:31 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2015 04:28 Plansix wrote:
Whitedog, how are you confused by this? Nyxisto isn't talking about you specifically, but a significant number of Jews in both the EU and US feeling some sort of allegiance to Israel. It is one of the main political hurtles when it comes to criticizing the county, since it has a direct effect on local politics. And what does it have to do with the ruling ? You are aware Jews live and are the overwhelming majority demographic in Israel? When you asked "what does that have to do with Jews?" were you unaware that Israel and Judaism are connected at a fundamental level and that connection influences politics? But what does it have to do with labelling goods coming from occupied territory ? Well Jews live in the occupied territory, so a little bit. And what does it have to do with goods being labelled ? Seriously, you don't understand that the religion have nothing at all to do with that ? What the hell, is it open racism when the US enforce restriction on imports coming from Japan ? I never said the argument is valid, only that the it is perceived as politically motivated by Jews in the EU who side with Israel. They see the settlements as valid parts of Israel and the goods to be labels as such and not be differentiated. Not matter how logical or legally sound your argument is, the politics do not obey that reasoning. Political views are not rational actors in any way. Hence they have made their way into the EU Politics thread and someone pointed out the political reality of the labels and the ruling. "Enforcing law is open to discussion because you can hurt the feeling of the people that feel related to the people that are not respecting the law". On November 13 2015 04:57 oneofthem wrote:
again the problem is not their rules determining origin, left open to member states. the problem is the mandatory label requirement.
analogy
rules for determining what is a gmo
requirement for gmo labeling
u can have an 'accurate' 1 while still not allowed to do 2 But it is not unlawful (as of yet) for a country to ask for gmo labeling, or even to restrict gmo from being sold on their national soil. Politics are not rational. And the hurt feelings can turn into votes and lobbying, since those people are citizens of the EU. The same applies in the US, especially New York. We agree about that. But the exact opposite can be said : having a preferencial/different behavior toward a certain community because it have a lobbying power can create animosity toward this very community. Listening to the feeling of a minority is not always the best behavior, and in this regard it feels forced. And your argument is actually only true if you accept the premise that the jewish community is entirely pro israel. Most jew can do the distinction between Israel as a country and judaism. In France and in the US there are even jewish lobby that are openly against Israeli policies and for the boycott.
I don't accept that jewish community is entirely pro israel. I accept that enough of them are to matter in local politics and effect politics in that area.
|
Imagine how many pointless arguments could be avoided if Israel was named Jewland instead of Israel
|
Hm.. Reading through that, if you'd remove "Israel", and input "Russia".. I wonder if the outcry would be as big. Or if there actually would be any.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 13 2015 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
GMOs and Israel at the same time, you really want to bring this thread down do you oneofthem
my plot has been foiled!
|
On November 13 2015 05:48 m4ini wrote:
Hm.. Reading through that, if you'd remove "Israel", and input "Russia".. I wonder if the outcry would be as big. Or if there actually would be any.
I bet you can find something related to Russian annexation of Crimea which would be similar to this situation
|
On November 13 2015 06:32 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2015 05:48 m4ini wrote:
Hm.. Reading through that, if you'd remove "Israel", and input "Russia".. I wonder if the outcry would be as big. Or if there actually would be any.
I bet you can find something related to Russian annexation of Crimea which would be similar to this situation
Yet, nobody gives or gave a shit.
|
Of course they do. If Crimean or Eastern Ukraine products would turn up in EU markets labeled as "made in Russia", there would be an outcry. It might take some time for the Commission to process the complaint, but after a while they would get to it, I am sure.
I too do not know how these issues are handled in cases like Tibet or Kashmir.
They may very well be cases of 'might makes right'. Which would be totally unfair to smaller countries like Israel, but are also a fact of life and not that much of an argument (looting is still illegal even if everybody is doing it for example).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
