Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

The European Court of Justice's antisemitic ruling

By Jed Lea-Henry - posted Monday, 2 December 2019

There is an odd hope out there in the world about how the human mind works. And so we tend to associate the act of banning something – be it through law or social norms – with the act of curing it. This is never more obvious than with racism, where the silencing of certain bigotries makes everyone instinctively feel that those bigotries have disappeared, that the hatred has turned to love, and the discrimination to acceptance.

The ruling of the European Court of Justice this past week has exposed just how flawed and naïve this type of thinking is. Following in the steps of poorly intentioned street activism – the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) – the Court ruled that all products made in Israeli settlements must be labelled as such, and cannot be sold as ‘products of Israel’.

On the face of it, this might not seem like anything to be concerned about, but in the details of it are the unmistakable – and now legitimatised – returning shadows of a long bottled-up anti-Semitism.


From the Court’s own language, this was not a pro-Palestinian outcome; it was only, and explicitly, an anti-Israeli one. The new labelling requirements apply to the occupied territories, so Syria and the Golan Heights are pulled into the fringes of this as well. And with it, anyone trying to justify this ruling in terms of encouraging the peace process, creating a two-state solution, or by the rights of the Palestinian people, are championing something that just isn’t there.

Still – based on what the Golan Heights are today – the Court’s decision is targeted at Israel alone, mentioning (to the exclusion of all other countries) that anything Israel produces in any territory that it didn’t control prior to 1967, be marked as coming from “Israeli Settlements”. Syria might have been dragged into this (in part), but only Israel was on trial here.

Which is where all of this gets so pernicious. Any impartial law, or Court ruling, no matter what it is, needs to satisfy a fundamental criteria – it needs to be universal. It must apply only to crimes, and not to people. Anything short of this is not only discrimination, but selective persecution. An infamous, but telling example of this has been American President, Donald Trump’s, attempted ‘Muslim travel ban’. This was shot down as unconstitutional because the Trump administration was labelling Muslims as security risks, rather than first defining what constitutes a ‘universal’ security risk, and only then applying it to individual Muslim’s if, and when, they fit the category… along with everyone else.

The European Court of Justice turned this around. If their ruling had come with, or as a result of, a universal standard that read something like, ‘any products made within any occupied territory must be labelled’, then there would be no argument here. But China is not required to label its exports as ‘Made in Tibet’, nor Morocco as ‘Made in Western Sahara’, Armenia as ‘Made in Azerbaijan’, Turkey as ‘Made in Cyprus’ and ‘Made in Syria’, nor Russia as ‘Made in Ukraine’, ‘Made in Georgia’, and ‘Made in Moldova’.

Instead the European Union has passed a law that applies to only one possible defendant.

The Court has shown no intention to broaden this out for other countries, and so is now signalling to Europe – and the world – that it is okay to legislate through double standards, just so long as you are targeting the Jewish state.


This is not just an unhappy accident, nor an aberration of some kind.  The precedent was already there, carved deep into our most fundamental institutions.

From 2006 to 2016 – a period that witnessed the Arab Spring and its suppression, multiple Russian invasions, and China’s crack down on Xinjiang, amongst others – the United Nations Human Rights Council during its first decade in operation passed 68 condemning resolutions against Israel… and only 67 against the rest of the world combined. The countries with zero condemnations in this period included China, Russia, Somalia, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Iraq, and Cuba. 

The United Nations General Assembly, from 2012 to 2015, adopted 97 resolutions explicitly criticizing member states, 83 of which were targeted at Israel alone. 

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

19 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jed Lea-Henry is a writer, academic, and the host of the Korea Now Podcast. You can follow Jed's work, or contact him directly at Jed Lea-Henry and on Twitter @JedLeaHenry.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jed Lea-Henry

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 19 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy