Northwestern Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich has a level-headed piece explaining the meaning of last week's European Union decision regarding Judea and Samaria. More importantly, he looks into some of the
motivation behind it.
Indeed, the Europeans’ own conduct proves that
this is not about implementing international law. Many countries in the
region occupy foreign territory and even establish settlements there.
The most obvious example is Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus; others
include Morocco’s subjugation of Western Sahara, the EU’s fellow “Middle
East Quartet” member Russia’s recent conquest of parts of Georgia, and
Armenia’s in Azerbaijan. In none of these cases has the EU promulgated
such guidelines – even when it concerns the ongoing Turkish settlement
enterprise in the territory of Europe itself. So whatever “law” the EU
thinks mandates the Israel rules, it is clearly a law for one nation
only.
Moreover, the guidelines contain a massive
exception that undermines the notion that this is about international
law rather than EU foreign policy. Article 15 exempts groups that
“promot[e] the Middle East peace process in line with EU policy.” Either
the Geneva Conventions and related rules prevent Israelis from having
anything to do with the West Bank or they do not – but they certainly do
not contain a “things the EU likes” exception. The exemption reveals
the true purpose of the rules: to promote European foreign policy, not
to vindicate international law. Indeed, the essence of the rule of law
is about applying general rules to similar cases, regardless of one’s
sympathies. The application of unique rules to Jewish State is the
opposite of lawful.
Read the whole thing.
Am I the only one that gets a weird feeling the EU will push all-in and add 'palestine' over all of Yesha, Gaza and Golan into the EU whether the Arabs agree to it or even discuss it or not? What they're doing has an odd feel of Anschluss about it. Always has.
ReplyDelete