Time for some hard ball.
The question for the EU now is if Israel is a “unique” or “special” case, how can one know from general principles what rules apply to it? How can there even be a “rule” for a special case?
The EU will dodge that excellent question as long as it can, in order to maintain its self deemed right to arbitrarily define international law, as if no other points of view exist. It’s the same as trying to talk sense to a child who has both ears plugged with an index finger shouting bla bla bla…..
Also, the EU is not a normal governing entity that’s answerable to the public they supposedly represent, it’s more of neo-aristocracy / oligarchy. Israel has to take that into account when dealing with them, they treat their own ”constituency” in the exat same way. They’re dangerous utopians, that explains their mindset and the way they rule, by decree, they couldn’t care less about facts, look how they rule outside their guidelines that they themselves put into place. That is what has to be factored in, in any dealings with them, they are not rational minded, they are post-enlightenment.
NOTE: The EU in general also hates the Jewish state from a number of irrational reasons stemming from traditional ancient anti-Semitism and dhimmitude (subservience) to the oil producing Islamic Levant. This is why I think that Israel should take a harder line with the EU.
”You act irrationally, we will then treat you like the mental patients that you are, and remove our diplomatic officials from your EU states in mass until you get your minds right.”
Why is this occupation different from all other occupations?
The EU insists that Turks in Cyprus and Moroccans in Western Sahara ‘cannot be compared’ to Israelis in the West Bank. Two legal scholars are fighting a losing battle to find out why
Many Israelis have long felt that the European Union is biased against them. Two legal scholars – a former Israeli ambassador and an American Jewish international law professor — think they’ve found the perfect case to prove the claim: A new fishing deal, signed between the Europeans and Morocco, which applies beyond Morocco’s internationally recognized borders, taking in the territory of Western Sahara, which Morocco invaded in 1975 and has occupied ever since.
And they are challenging EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to explain why the agreement, which doesn’t exclude Morocco’s occupied territory, doesn’t show that the body holds Israel to a double standard.
The EU insists that any agreement will explicitly exclude the settlements in the “occupied” West Bank, the scholars noted in a letter sent last month to Ashton’s Brussels office. So why don’t the same constraints apply in the case of Morocco? This blatant inconsistency shows “an official double-standard practiced by the EU,” Professor Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University and Israeli ex-ambassador to Canada Alan Baker charged.
Last week, the EU responded to the letter, saying, essentially, that Israel’s occupation is different, but we’re not telling you how and why.
The EU maintains that Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unique, legally speaking, but consistently refuses to explain exactly how it differs from, say, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus or that Moroccan presence in Western Sahara; while Rabat asserts ownership of the territory, not a single other country recognizes the claim.
In their letter to Ashton, the legal scholars posited that the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement, approved earlier this month by the European Parliament, appears “to directly contradict what the EU has called obligations of international law in its dealing with Israel.”
“In fact, the EU has been negotiating this agreement with Morocco even as it imposes on Israel unprecedented funding guidelines and rules of origin requirements that say the exact opposite,” Kontorovich and Baker wrote, referring to much-discussed guidelines that, from January 1, ban any European funding from going to Israeli entities beyond the Green Line or those with any connections beyond the Green Line. Jerusalem’s fierce opposition to those guidelines famously jeopardized Israel’s participation in Horizon 2020, a highly lucrative scientific cooperation program; the Horizon partnership was ultimately saved.
NOTE: View Eugene Kontorovich’s explanation on Israel’s legal right to be in Judea and Samaria