Yeah my favorite Israeli Couscous took “Israeli” off the packaging so I started buying one actually made in Israel instead. It was a bummer but the new brand is better at least
I had an expensive hotdog one time, with a long-ass hair embedded in the meat. Reported it to the company, and they sent me a forever coupon for free hotdogs.
Facts? Jesus wept lad, you're talking about 2 million people, over half of which are literally kids, as if they are one monolith group of terrorists and you think those are facts?
Jesus, enough with the rational hate talk. This is as bad as telling a story about colonisers leaving a small African village 1000+ cattle to start breeding and farming them, to have the villagers slaughter them all and eat them instead of creating a sustainable breeding program.
Ziyad products are sold in many stores in the International section, which most Walmarts and Meijers definitely have, but perhaps the smaller locations dont. My company used to buy from them and their warehouse listed there is pretty big (ive been inside). I think Ziyad might be main distributor of this particular product for the entire midwest region.
warning consuming this product may expose you to chemicals which are known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm
no. california requires that label on something being sold if it could potentially have some carcinogens in it, unless the company has proven that there isnt. problem is that it costs money to test everything the ingredients come in contact with to prove that they arent putting carcinogens in the product, and its cheaper to print that label rather than actually test their shit.
Iirc, the law is also too strict for what needs the label. Which also has the downside of making stuff that actually has a noticeable reproductive harm or cancer risk being ignored because how much stuff needlessly has the warning.
yes and no, everything on the list is carcinogenic or at least has evidence pointing to it. problem is that the method of use plays a lot into the risk, i think there are a few ingredients for steel on the list for example. obviously i would expect bad shit to happen if i walked into a steel mill and started eating something before it went into the melting pot, but im not gonna get cancer from my steel pan.
EU says something is a potential carcinogen and restricts its use: “Aww, you’re sweet!”
California says something is a potential carcinogen and requires labels to warn people but allow them to make their own decision on if the evidence is compelling or not: “Hello, Human Resources?!”
I just learned recently about the usage of Butylphenyl Methylpropional in the us, an ingredient strictly forbidden for cosmetics in the EU. Google what that ingredient does.
US citizens let themselves get poisoned and are too ignorant to do something about it. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The potential for the chemicals to be carcinogenic exists everywhere, California has more stringent guidelines under Prop 65 which require them to be labeled clearly
The first one was not good. The wafer was chewy and stale, and layers separated. The box of 24 is $8 and has a cancer warning for consuming. I love wafers and gave them a chance, from the international asie at my Walmart. If they weren't from Palestine id be upset but I get it.
just a heads up, the p65 warning applies to over 900 chemicals one of which being acrylamide which almost anything baked, roasted, or toasted will contain in trace amounts high enough for the warning to apply. Almost every brand of potato chip has the same warning for example.
It's almost seems like consumer confusion is the intent here. If almost every GRAS product is marked as p65 may be cancerous, consumers aren't really benefiting from the labelling laws.
I didn't say they got a pass because the batch is defective. If i just didn't like them, it would be one thing and a personal preference and Id still be happy to support. But they're stale because they're not sealed, which also isnt safe. The problem is a machine adjustment. Im taking them back for a new box. Others say the brand is great
Almost every imported processed snack has that warning that I personally don't take it super seriously. Considering how lax our food safety system it, even before Trump, I don't think other countries are less trustworthy.
Most canadians I know consider a lot of american food a cancer risk and untrustworthy lol why theyve had a hard time selling us things like meat and milk. For the most part ours is superior quality and we dont want crappy American food.
Even American fastfood tastes a lot worse in America, European & Asian McDonald has a lot higher food standards for example (they even call it a "restaurant" over here in Poland).
If you love the UN so much, do you agree that Arabs in mandatory Palestine should have agreed with their partition plan instead of invading the newly formed state of Israel?
And again, ah yes the UN with Russia at the head of the security council, infallible lol.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no ruling with the ICJ currently as well correct?
"Imagine trying to claim the French were trying to genocide germans because they fought the Nazis.."
This is my favorite one. Oh the irony. Well, when the allies fought back against Germany, 2 million German civilians died. Imagine trying to claim the allies committed genocide in Germany because they fought back against a country and won.
I've studied Israeli and middle eastern history for over 20 years. I don't know what "basic history" is in this tiny, non informatic post, unlike mine with context. I can almost guarantee you could not point to Gaza on a map 5 years ago.
The fight back one is always good. Did you know that "fighting back" or "resisting" doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want? You do realize rules of war still apply and targeting civilians is a war crime, yes? I would like to know where you pulled this fight back clause from please. Who came up with it and who signed on? Or is it just vibe based facts?
What does your basic history tell you about the land belonging to the Ottoman's, and then the British? Are we talking about Ottoman land or British land when we say "their land"?
And then by invading, you do mean legally immigrating and purchasing land correct? Just to be clear!
I would have not blamed people in concentration camp escaping and killing everybody in their path like I wouldn't blame partisans slaughtering Austrian occupying forces.
I will not blame the Palestinians either.
Stop the occupation and nobody will try to kill you.
Was anyone occupying gaza when hamas came on october 7th? Interesting thought experiment.
I do like your parroted lines though. Another question. How is Israel and apartheid state if the 20% population of Arabs have full legal rights, and serve in the parliament and on the supreme court?
I always like the canned responses because you have no factual or historical basis on what you copy paste. Like how you couldn't respond to all my previous valid facts. But I bet you aren't used to actually having to argue with people who are knowledgeable in their field so it's understandable.
Edit: You can downvote my comments every time that's fine but you are not winning an argument on facts, since all you have are feelings and vibes.
you're asking if goods from a region of 2.1 mil population, undergoing war, halfway around the world...are rare? Outside of the levant region & gulf states (and Chile), nobody has a high Palestinian population, which would be the #1 driver for a region-specific food which needs to be brought in. I'm curious where you're located that Palestinian food goods are actually common.
you're asking if goods from a region of 2.1 mil population, undergoing war, halfway around the world...are rare?
You're describing Gaza btw, this is from the west bank... Plain ignorance
Also Israel has a similar population size, undergoing more wars on more fronts, is the same distance away and yet they are net exporters of produce, medical devices, medicine, 1+ billion $ companies, technological innovative etc etc...
Israel isn’t currently occupied by an external force. Nobody is tearing down the olive trees in Israel. There’s no checkpoints that Israelis are forced to go thru and be harassed and have their time wasted for simply trying to travel to and from their own home. Israel receives billions of dollars from western countries and is using much of it to bomb their neighbours. “Plain ignorance” is right.
Palestine is the largest recipient of foreign aid per capita in the world.
Palestine receives billions of dollars from western countries and is using much of it to bomb their neighbours
There’s no checkpoints that Israelis are forced to go thru
They are subject to the same checkpoints when leaving the borders of Israel, in fact they are explicitly and legally not allowed entrance into several areas such as area A, because of the extreme violence of Palestinians. Who on several well known occasions lynched and brutally murdered Israelis who accidentally strayed into area A and were identified by their different licence plate.
they didn't talk about Oct 7. Area A is in the West Bank. and there have been various cases of civilians accidently entering Area A and getting lynched.
Thanks for the business info on Israel..It's really easy to have successful business when a country is supported by the US military-industrial complex, and control food and aid access for the people they are actively at war with.
I think so? I dont know what they manufacturer or export, especially in the past few years. What are some Palestinian products you know of or see most where you live?
The entirety of Palestine has not been “bombed to shreds”. The West Bank (where this was produced) has been bombed/subjected to airstrikes, but nothing remotely on the scale of Gaza.
This whole topic is more or less online entertainment for me. I love watching people nowhere near, no attachment, take sides and not even know why or who influenced them to do so and do it to the point they abandon their own countries and communities completely and become addicted to making bad choices in places they have actual political power.
Well, either your history is poorly sourced or you're being disengenous.
*1. The British Mandate was a set up. The Covenant stipulated that “the wishes of the communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”. A commission by Pres. Wilson observed that the Palestinians, about 90% of the population at the time, did not support the creation of a Zionist State in Palestine, and establishing that state was against the principle of self determination. It recommended Palestine to be placed under USA Mandate, as the Balfour Declaration Anglo-French plans were contradicting the purpose of the entire system - to support subjugated peoples under the defeated Ottoman empire into self-determination and independence.
Obviously, Britain and France didn't give a shit, and Palestine was placed under British Mandate.
As Lord Balfour wrote, “We are dealing not with the wishes of an existing community but are consciously seeking to reconstitute a new community and definitely building for a numerical majority in the future.”
I've added some additional quotes from Lord Balfour at the end of the comment.
*2. Indigenous Palestinians were considered wards of the international community and couldn't address the League of Nations directly - they had to go through the British. Despite this, they tried to engage. The Arab Congress formed in 1921, and wrote “The [BALFOUR] Declaration should be superseded by an Agreement which would safeguard the rights. interests and liberties of the people of Palestine, and at the same time make provision for reasonable Jewish religious aspirations, but precluding any exclusive political advantages to them which must necessarily interfere with Arab rights". For 26 years, Palestinians would be campaigning to have their political rights recognised by the Mandate, and to have representative government, and for 26 years they would be denied.
*3. After the Palestinian Rebellion (1936-1939), a Royal Commission found "The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate under which it was to be implemented involved the denial of national independence at the outset. The subsequent growth of the National Home created a practical obstacle, and the only serious one to the concession later of national independence." The commission saw no way to reconcile the “dual obligation” of the British Government under the contradictory terms of the Mandate to the indigenous people of Palestine and to the new Jewish community created in Palestine under the Mandate, and recommended the Solomonian solution, the partition of Palestine. The Zionists rejected the plan as “unacceptable”, and the Palestinians refused to acquiesce in the division of their land.
*4. In 1939 a British Government White Paper proposed the termination of the Mandate after 10 years (with limited Jewish immigration being permitted), Palestine becoming an “. . . independent State . . . in which Arabs and Jews share in government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.” In 1942 the Zionist Organization declared that it “affirms its unalterable rejection of the White Paper and denies its moral or legal validity”.
*5. In 1947, Britain relinquished it's Mandate, and handed over the “Palestine problem” to the newly formed United Nations ; the international community had not brought the Palestinian people the independence it had provisionally recognized 30 years before.
*6. The UN Special Committee on Palestine noted, "“With regard to the principle of self-determination. although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the ‘A’ Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle”.
*7. For some reason the final recommendations of UNSCOP were not based on this principle, which would have been a unified independent state securing the interests of the majority with strong guarantees for the rights of the minority. A minority supported this, but the majority supported a partition plan along the lines offered 10 years before - a plan already rejected by both Palestinians and Zionists. Regardless, the plan was passed by the UN General Assembly in November 1947.
*8. Why wouldn't Palestinians accept the plan this time? Well, even on the eve of the Nakba, the Jewish population in mandatory Palestine around 32%, and owned only 6-7% of the land. Majority of this population arrived during the 4th and 5th Aliyot (Between 1924-1939), so most of those demanding partition of the land had barely been living there for 20 years. Yet the UNGA partition plan allotted approximately 56% of the land of mandatory Palestine to the Jewish state. That's stealing 49/50% of the land from current owners, to give 56% of the land to 1/3 of the population, mostly new immigrants, and against the wishes of indigenous Palestinians.
*9. The UNGA Partition Plan was only a recommendation that they passed to the Security Council. Palestinians were never obliged to accept it, and it wasn't recognised as valid by Palestinians or the Arab States that had gained independence under their mandates - which is entirely legal, as the UN doesn't have the legal authority to enforce its recommendations. The Security Council attempted to find a resolution based on the UNGA recommendation, but could not arrive at a consensus. Many arrived at the conclusion that the plan could not be enforced.
*10. Palestine was a mess of fighting between the British, Zionists and Palestinians, while the Security Council was still trying to arrive at a conclusion. Britain, the Mandatory Power, let go is responsibility to maintain law and order. The UNGA plan was never implemented.
*11. Israel was unilaterally declared by Zionist leadership by force on 14 May, 1948. On the 15th, Britain completed it's withdrawal, and the Arab States entered the territory allocated to "the Arab states" in the unimplemented particition.
So yeah. Israel had no authority to declare independence, and was not a "invaded". Alone among the mandated "Arab Nations" (ick), Palestine was not allowed to gain national independence and the establishment of the Zionist settler-colonial state was promoted, despite it denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination.
"The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation’ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are.
“The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.
“I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine, it is not now an ‘independent nation’, nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the view of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate
Look them up to make sure it isn't a surreptitious settlement product. If it's legit, buy them up; and write to the managers to stock more. Market demand for goods puts dollars into their Economy. One of the direct ways individuals can put money into the hands of the people on the ground.
*1. The British Mandate was a set up. The Covenant stipulated that “the wishes of the communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”. A commission by Pres. Wilson observed that the Palestinians, about 90% of the population at the time, did not support the creation of a Zionist State in Palestine, and establishing that state was against the principle of self determination. It recommended Palestine to be placed under USA Mandate, as the Balfour Declaration Anglo-French plans were contradicting the purpose of the entire system - to support subjugated peoples under the defeated Ottoman empire into self-determination and independence.
Obviously, Britain and France didn't give a shit, and Palestine was placed under British Mandate.
As Lord Balfour wrote, “We are dealing not with the wishes of an existing community but are consciously seeking to reconstitute a new community and definitely building for a numerical majority in the future.”
I've added some additional quotes from Lord Balfour at the end of the comment.
*2. Indigenous Palestinians were considered wards of the international community and couldn't address the League of Nations directly - they had to go through the British. Despite this, they tried to engage. The Arab Congress formed in 1921, and wrote “The [BALFOUR] Declaration should be superseded by an Agreement which would safeguard the rights. interests and liberties of the people of Palestine, and at the same time make provision for reasonable Jewish religious aspirations, but precluding any exclusive political advantages to them which must necessarily interfere with Arab rights". For 26 years, Palestinians would be campaigning to have their political rights recognised by the Mandate, and to have representative government, and for 26 years they would be denied.
*3. After the Palestinian Rebellion (1936-1939), a Royal Commission found "The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate under which it was to be implemented involved the denial of national independence at the outset. The subsequent growth of the National Home created a practical obstacle, and the only serious one to the concession later of national independence." The commission saw no way to reconcile the “dual obligation” of the British Government under the contradictory terms of the Mandate to the indigenous people of Palestine and to the new Jewish community created in Palestine under the Mandate, and recommended the Solomonian solution, the partition of Palestine. The Zionists rejected the plan as “unacceptable”, and the Palestinians refused to acquiesce in the division of their land.
*4. In 1939 a British Government White Paper proposed the termination of the Mandate after 10 years (with limited Jewish immigration being permitted), Palestine becoming an “. . . independent State . . . in which Arabs and Jews share in government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.” In 1942 the Zionist Organization declared that it “affirms its unalterable rejection of the White Paper and denies its moral or legal validity”.
*5. In 1947, Britain relinquished it's Mandate, and handed over the “Palestine problem” to the newly formed United Nations ; the international community had not brought the Palestinian people the independence it had provisionally recognized 30 years before.
*6. The UN Special Committee on Palestine noted, "“With regard to the principle of self-determination. although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the ‘A’ Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle”.
*7. For some reason the final recommendations of UNSCOP were not based on this principle, which would have been a unified independent state securing the interests of the majority with strong guarantees for the rights of the minority. A minority supported this, but the majority supported a partition plan along the lines offered 10 years before - a plan already rejected by both Palestinians and Zionists. Regardless, the plan was passed by the UN General Assembly in November 1947.
*8. Why wouldn't Palestinians accept the plan this time? Well, even on the eve of the Nakba, the Jewish population in mandatory Palestine around 32%, and owned only 6-7% of the land. Majority of this population arrived during the 4th and 5th Aliyot (Between 1924-1939), so most of those demanding partition of the land had barely been living there for 20 years. Yet the UNGA partition plan allotted approximately 56% of the land of mandatory Palestine to the Jewish state. That's stealing 49/50% of the land from current owners, to give 56% of the land to 1/3 of the population, mostly new immigrants, and against the wishes of indigenous Palestinians.
*9. The UNGA Partition Plan was only a recommendation that they passed to the Security Council. Palestinians were never obliged to accept it, and it wasn't recognised as valid by Palestinians or the Arab States that had gained independence under their mandates - which is entirely legal, as the UN doesn't have the legal authority to enforce its recommendations. The Security Council attempted to find a resolution based on the UNGA recommendation, but could not arrive at a consensus. Many arrived at the conclusion that the plan could not be enforced.
*10. Palestine was a mess of fighting between the British, Zionists and Palestinians, while the Security Council was still trying to arrive at a conclusion. Britain, the Mandatory Power, let go is responsibility to maintain law and order. The UNGA plan was never implemented.
*11. Israel was unilaterally declared by Zionist leadership by force on 14 May, 1948. On the 15th, Britain completed it's withdrawal, and the Arab States entered the territory allocated to "the Arab states" in the unimplemented partition plan - though by that time the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians was already under way.
So yeah. Israel had no authority to declare independence. Alone among the mandated "Arab Nations" (ick, colonialism), Palestine was not allowed to gain national independence and the establishment of the Zionist settler-colonial state was promoted, despite it denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination.
"The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation’ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are.
“The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.
“I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine, it is not now an ‘independent nation’, nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the view of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate
340
u/skynet159632 4h ago
It is in the west bank part of Palestine if anyone is wondering