Why is this occupation different from all other occupations?

[shira]

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, even though Morocco invaded that area in 1975 and has occupied ever since.

The two scholars are now challenging EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to explain why the agreement, in not excluding Morocco’s occupied territory, doesn’t prove that the EU is holding Israel to a double standard.

The EU insists that any agreement it signs with Israel 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 without detailing how and why....

http://www.timesofisrael.com/why-is-this-occupation-different-from-all-other-occupations/

[Violet_Crumble]

1. A dream article for those who support the Occupation...

It's mindless tripe, though. It starts with the headline 'different from all other occupations' and then the article starts with saying there's one...

Most rational people can recognise that's there's differences between different occupations. What they don't do is scream 'tell us the difference! tell us the difference!' in order to try to justify an occupation they support, and that's because rational folk on the Left don't support occupations regardless of who's carrying it out or who's being occupied....

[shira]

2. Since you're one of the rational folk on the Left who don't support occupations...

...then you must have a big, huge, ginormous problem with the EU's new fishing deal they made with Morocco that's being applied beyond Morocco's internationally recognized borders.

1. Explain to me how bothered you are with the EU's support of Morocco's occupation.

2. The EU also funds settlements in Turkish Occupied Cyprus. You must be outraged by this as well. Tell me all about it, pretty please!

Can't wait to hear this...

[azurnoir]

4. Morocco must be preventing fishermen native to Western Sahara from fishing their in own waters?

or building on their own land? also they (Morocco) must also be transferring Moroccans into Western Sahara to build Moroccan only townships and roads while preventing Western Sahara natives from building travel ect-right?

[shira]

5. So you're okay with the EU supporting occupation and settlements elsewhere....

In both Morocco and Turkish Cyprus.

Good to know, thanks!

[azurnoir]

6. that's not what I asked is it? your accusation rather than answer the question

told us all we need to know

[shira]

9. Your question is irrelevant. Forget Morocco for now, what about Cyprus?

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/How-the-EU-directly-funds-settlements-in-occupied-territory-327329

The EU directly funds settlements in Turkish Cyprus.

Does that bother you?

[azurnoir]

11. No not when a desparate and Rightwing publication like JPost has long convoluted explanation of it's

claims like the one you just posted

[shira]

13. Deflection. Good talk....not. n/t

[azurnoir]

15. No deflection as I've read similar run downs of the EU's supposed 'boycott' of the West Bank

EU funds will funnel into the West Bank the very same way they do Turkish Cyprus

[shira]

20. Let's see if we can agree there is no violation of law or principles that Israel is committing....

...in the territories WRT the settlements.

If Israel is a special case, that's not International Law as special cases are bullshit and prejudiced. What applies to Israel should apply universally.

Since there is no international outcry against what the EU is doing in Turkish Cyprus, it's obvious that International Law is not being violated by EU funding of settlements there. However, Europe maintains that what they're doing by de-funding Israeli settlements is mandated by law. If de-funding Israeli settlements is mandated by law, then Europe is clearly violating that law in Cyprus (where the Turkish occupation has been deemed illegal). So is the de-funding of settlements in occupied territory really mandated by International law, or not?

[azurnoir]

32. so now you claim that what Israel is doing in the West Bank is legal

nuf said

[Violet_Crumble]

7. The answer's a very simple one...

From the little I know of the situation with Morocco, the EU is wrong to do that fishing deal. Same goes for funding any settlement activity in Cyprus.

So, having gotten that out of the way, can you explain why you oppose those occupations but constantly express support of Israel's occupation of the West Bank?

[shira]

8. I'm against Israel's occupation, but I realize the complexity involved...

Israel needs to extricate itself out of the W.Bank for its own good. The problem is security and the Gaza withdrawal of 2005 proves it's not as simple as just getting out and hoping for peace. They got out and immediately got more rockets, thousands of them, in return. That cannot be repeated in the W.Bank as the stakes will be much higher (with almost all Israel's population being within close range of rockets).

You may see that as support, but I see it as a choice between bad and worse. That doesn't translate to support.

Would you say the EU has hypocritical double-standards in its dealings with Turkish Cyprus and Morocco?

[Violet_Crumble]

10. What about for the good of Palestinians? Not everything's about Israel...

And anyone that argues against ending the Occupation by creating a bunch of 'what if' scenarios isn't someone who opposes the Occupation...

When it comes to the EU, it's so unorganised and full of states that disagree with each other most of the time that it isn't any surprise that there's things like that happen. What I do know is that they've got one thing right, and that's the approach to Israel's occupation. That should be extended to those other two occupations...

[shira]

12. If Israel gets completely out of the W.B. tomorrow, it won't be good for Palestinians

Hamas will take over in short order. Gaza II. I think we can agree that would not be good for Palestinians. It certainly wouldn't be good for Israelis either. Anyone who knows anything about the situation in the W.Bank knows that only the IDF is preventing a Hamas takeover of the W.Bank. Abbas certainly knows this and is not in any hurry to let that happen.

And anyone that argues against ending the Occupation by creating a bunch of 'what if' scenarios isn't someone who opposes the Occupation...

It's called reality. What makes you think there's a really good chance the W.Bank won't become Gaza II once Israel leaves?

I truly believe that even if Israel gets out, things will turn to shit and Israel will have to either destroy the W.Bank or do a limited operation and then re-occupy.

If I thought there'd be peace after a complete pullout, I'd be all for it. Do you believe there'd soon be peace if Israel pulled out of the W.Bank tomorrow?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Tomorrow? How about being realistic about it?

Next Tuesday should be the day!

Sorry, but you've just put up an unrealistic scenario based on *what if* and it's an argument that's clearly opposing ending the occupation. In that sort of scenario, the Palestinians are cast as inherently violent and incapable of autonomy, and that any violence isn't due to the Occupation, but to the Palestinians being anti-Semitic. Someone with those views thinks that the Palestinians will never change, which is why they support the Occupation continuing...

What can and should be done immediately is for Israel to stop the settlement expansion, and for Israel and Palestine to enter into genuine peace negotiations where the concerns and needs of both are treated equally. And while it wouldn't happen tomorrow or even in a few months, Israel needs to dismantle settlements that are in Palestine, and stop the outright opposition to a Palestinian state.

The Occupation needs to end. Not tomorrow, but it's not a case of belligerent military occupation or anarchy and violence. Israeli troops need to be withdrawn and Palestinians need to be able to control all of the West Bank. The international community should be involved and with the permission of the Palestinians help administer and protect the West Bank until the Palestinians are able to do it on their own...

[shira]

17. Olmert was serious and Abbas rejected his offer.

Going back further, the Clinton Initiatives were serious but Arafat rejected that one too, before regretting it later.

Sharon got Israel out of Gaza unilaterally and Olmert was elected in 2006 partly due to his realignment/convergence plan (which would have unilaterally taken Israel out of 90% of the W.Bank). That was rejected by the Palestinians and their western supporters as well. Imagine Israel out of 90% of the W.Bank for the past 6-7 years, leaving only the negotiations for the last 10% via land swaps. Can I assume back in 2005-06 you'd have been against both the Gaza and W.Bank withdrawals? Because if so, that seriously calls into question whether you're truly for Israel ending the occupation....

Let's assume Bibi isn't serious. What should Israel have done prior to Bibi? They offered 2 credible peace deals and offered to unilaterally leave 90% of the W.Bank after leaving all Gaza.

[shira]

19. Back to the EU funding settlements in occupied territory...

Would you say that when the EU funds settlements in Turkish Cyprus, when the Brits set up universities there in occupied settled territory, when British expats are still being encouraged to buy homes there that rightfully belong to Greek Cypriots....that these acts are in fact illegal and against International Law?

[azurnoir]

14. What's complex shira?

the thousands of rockets claims as an excuse in attempt to justify the occupation are a familiar excuse that ignores the rockets stem directly from the occupation itself' now as for Cyprus and Morocco the EU has outlawed years ago funding projects in Turkish Cyprus and Morocco's occupation of the Western Sahara in no resembles Israel's of the West Bank or it's cruel siege of Gaza

[shira]

18. You're wrong. The EU didn't outlaw funding projects in Turkish Cyprus years ago....

Source:

The grants are pursuant to a 2006 regulation adopted by the EU to “end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community,” and allocated 259 million euros over five years, and now operates on an annual 28 million euro allocation (a sum that amounts to roughly 0.8 percent of Northern Cyprus[‘s GDP).

Projects include study abroad scholarships for students at the numerous Northern Cyprus universities (imagine such funding for students at Ariel University!); developing and diversifying the private sector through grants to small and medium- sized businesses; various kinds of infrastructure improvements (telecom upgrades, traffic safety, waste disposal); community development grants, funding to upgrade “cultural heritage” sites, and so forth. They even put on a concert.

The program basically gives grants to the Turkish business and private entities, and builds the infrastructure of the occupying government. The EU is doing exactly what its claims, in the settlement guidelines, international law prohibits.

The relevant EU resolutions and reports make no mention of any international legal question about such funding.

There are real differences between the EU’s funding policies toward Turkey’s occupied territories and Israel’s territories: the former is a much starker contradiction of the principles the Europeans proclaim to uphold. The settlement guidelines aim to regulate groups based in Israel proper, and goes out of its way to make sure no money might be incidentally spent in the West Bank (or Golan or, oddly, Gaza). Yet the Northern Cyprus project is not simply an outgrowth of standing arrangements with Turkey or Cyprus, but rather a particular funding program that by definition funds 100% occupation activities.

Indeed, the EU maintains an office in Northern Cyprus to oversee its over “1000 grant contracts...to NGOs, SMEs, farmers, rural communities, schools and students,” according to an EU report.

This office liaises directly with the Turkish occupation regime in the territory. It is as if the EU had a direct funding and infrastructure development program for the benefit of, and run in conjunction with, the Shomron Regional Council.

The Northern Cyprus program is more flagrant in another way. The settlement guidelines make an exception for activities “aimed” at helping “protected persons,” an international law phrase meant to refer to the Palestinians. The Northern Cyprus funding cannot (and does not attempt) to claim this excuse because the majority of the territory’s population is mainland Turkish settlers.

So the primary and intended beneficiaries are Turkish settlers.

The Northern Cyprus program is only the most glaring example of the broad EU funding for settlement activity. Agreements just inked this summer with Morocco would continue to fund its occupation of Western Sahara, for example. And of course, many European businesses and universities openly operate in occupied territories, from French oil companies in Western Sahara to British universities in Northern Cyprus. Yet these companies are not disbarred from EU funding, while similarly situated Israeli ones would be.

[font color = "red"]These EU activities have not generated an international legal outcry because in fact, the standard legal view is that such funding does not violate any rules or principles. The EU’s novel position regarding Israel is neither the legal or logical consequence of Israeli activities.

[/font]

[azurnoir]

30. oooh broke out the red font-no matter it's still BS

from your own link

Yet it turns out that despite the guidelines, the EU still knowingly and purposefully provides substantial direct financial assistance to settlements in occupied territory – in Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus, that is. So the EU funds the occupation of an EU member state. Turkey’s invasion and occupation of Cyprus in 1974 was condemned the UN Security Council, and the EU’s official policy is that the Turkish occupation is illegitimate, and Turkey must completely withdraw. The EU does not recognize the Turkish government in Northern Cyprus.

[azurnoir]

31. Report: EU to bypass its own anti-settlements guidelines

In coordination with Israeli officials, the EU is about to introduce a solution that would allow Israeli institutions — which are invested in or profit from the occupation — to enjoy EU grants, according to a report in the Israel’s Maariv newspaper (Hebrew).

The new directives will enable Israeli companies and institutions to divert money into investments in the settlements and in Jewish enterprises beyond the Green Line through subsidiaries or divisions, all while receiving EU grants funds through their main operational budgets. If implemented, the new mechanism would allow Israel to join the prestigious Horizon 2020 program, which should result in 300 million euros of support to Israeli scientific and academic institutions.

The most important article Article 12B stated that, “Israeli entities will be considered eligible as final recipients [of loans] if they do not operate in the territories [conquered on June 1967].” According to the guidelines, Israeli institutions that applied for EU grants would be required to declare that they do not operate beyond the Green Line (read the full guidelines here).

The guidelines are not binding for EU member-states and do not apply to individual Israeli citizens.

http://972mag.com/report-eu-to-bypass-its-own-anti-settlements-guidelines/80521/

the anti-EU howls so reminiscent of of the early days of Dubya are about very little in actual working day to day life

[shira]

25. When the choice is b/w continued occupation vs. rockets/war....

...and thousands more dead, the choice is simple.

When you deny or ignore that reality, you're only showing that your preferred choice is more death and chaos. Israel should end the occupation no matter the cost.

But if that's not so, then please explain. Just what would it take in numbers of lives lost to make you acknowledge you were wrong about Israel ending the occupation? 5000 dead? 500,000? 2 million?

[bemildred]

21. Well, more to the point, foreign policy is not a logical exercise.

The fact that one treats some occupations different from other occupations does not mean one is making a mistake or doing anything wrong. It just means you have different views about the two occupations.

I do agree that the "West" has been dupllicitous in dealing with W. Sahara and Morocco. But the King is one of our buddies.

[shira]

22. The EU stated that international law mandates they boycott israeli settlements....

So either the EU is breaking international law WRT morocco and turkish cyprus, or what they're doing to israel is not mandated by international law at all.

In either case, they're discriminating against Israel just as the UN has been doing for decades by keeping Israel out of certain committees. Pure prejudice.

[bemildred]

35. That's it, stick with "logic", see what it gets you.

There is no international law, at best there are international customs and good intentions.

[Igel]

26. That's an easy one.

It may be a strawman that there's a claim the Israeli WB occupation is different from all others.

Let's assume it's not. Nobody's pointed out that possibility, so why borrow trouble?


The claim that the Israeli occ. is different from all others means there is no occupation--not a single occupation--in the set of "all others" that is "like" the Israeli occupation. Leave aside what "like" means here. Nobody wants to define it, so I won't poke that pile of poo either.

To falsify the claim all that you need to do is show that the Israeli occupation is non-unique. That there is at least one occupation that is "like" it. That kind of claim is best reserved for pure mathematics; reality is seldom so nice and absolute.

The authors argue that there's (at least) one occupation that is "like" (using the authors' definition) the Israeli occupation, thus falsifying the claim. The EU would claim tacitly that the two are unlike, or be silent and not define the ways in which they are unlike because, well, it's messy and they might lose or be seen as hypocritical in some way. Silence allows defenders to infer that there's some valid definition; speaking may make the inference ... difficult. Anyway, the logic is clear enough--defining what "like" and "unlike" are is the problem.

Some here seem to agree that they're "like enough." Others insist on differences and enumerate them. Personal opinion doesn't matter--it's going to be up to the EU to determine what the necessary traits are for "likeness" and they're not going to.

[msongs]

3. the israelites have been occupying other peoples' lands for 3 thousand years nothing new here nt

[King_David]

23. Ha ha ha

Yea kick em out..

Who are the Israelites tho?

Tell us.

[shira]

27. So long as one Jew remains anywhere, that Jew is oppressing others.

Duh...

[Scootaloo]

28. How strange

One might skim the article and think "Oh well, fair point,the Moroccans ARE occupying SADR against the wishes of those people, that's pretty bad, sure." But then you read it... and that's not actually the point being made. In fact the point being made is one that stinks of hypocrisy. Sure it does note that the occupation of SADR is bad... but even though that's bad, it goes on to argue that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is somehow good. That is, the occupation in the Western Sahara is somehow being used to justify the occupation in the Southern Levant.

How exactly does one condemn an occupation while also using it to defend your own occupation? Do you think China justifies its occupation of Tibet by pointing at Israel's occupation of Palestine? I've always wondered, but I don't think they do.

[bemildred]

33. It is a cool rhetorical trick, isn't it? And one sees it a lot, very popular too.

"Look, over there, a bird!!"

I have come to the conclusion that the I/P issue gets a lot of attention because it is constantly in the media, there is practically an industry based on talking about it, pro and con.

[Scootaloo]

34. Yeah, it's one of those "famous because it's famous" things

I imagine though, that if there were legions of english-language defenders of the Tibet occupation, or the Cyprus occupation, or what-have-you, all arguing that those takeovers are completely legit, and even of superior moral virtue, somehow necessary to the survival of Turks and Chinese the world over, and that the victims are subhuman inferior scum who shouldn't expect rights anyway...

The attention pointed at Israel is in large part because of the bullshit industry devoted to making it look like a light among nations