EU silent about its motivation when it comes to manifest bias against Israel

Israeli flagWhen I was in law school, I applied for to myriad law firms for a job.  I had good grades (and ultimately ended up with offers from prestigious law firms), but what remains in my memory forever is a rejection letter I got from one rather insignificant law firm:

Dear Ms [Bookworm]:

Thank you for your inquiry about a position at our firm.  There are many reasons why we cannot hire you.


Many of my classmates agreed that this won the award for rejection letter of the year.

I am beginning to suspect that someone at the European Union must have gotten a glimpse of that letter.  It’s certainly one way to explain the EU’s response when two scholars, one Israeli and one American, wrote to the EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, asking why it was honoring agreements with Morocco that included extra-national territory it had occupied since 1975, while refusing to honor any dealings with Israel that include “occupied” territory:

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.

The EU’s response, written by one of Ashton’s minions, is identical in spirit to that long-ago rejection letter I once received:

The EU’s response, authored on Ashton’s behalf by the managing director of the union’s external action service’s Middle East and Southern Neighborhood department, Hugues Mingarelli, read: “With regards to the allegation of using double standards for Israel and Morocco, our analysis is that the two cases are different and cannot be compared.” No further explanation was given.

That is precisely the kind of rejection letter that comes from a bureaucratic entity that cannot bring itself to state the obvious:  “With regards to the allegation of using double standards for Israel and Morocco, the answer is simple:  we are both antisemitic and terrified of Muslims.  Thank you for your inquiry.”

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Robert Arvanitis

    Brilliant play by the two scholars.
    From this we can conclude you cannot shame people who are shameless.
    Second, Israel must issue a safety notice stating that while Israelis themselves remain a humane, civilized and peaceful people, regrettably a golem has gotten loose, a self-replicating, indeed multiplying entity. And while the golems are not themselves conscious, they DO perceive the anxiety level of Jews everywhere, and are driven to violence by that anxiety.
    Yes, the Jewish equivalent of jihadis — dangerous, amoral. Not the ethical responsibility of Jews, yet still a thing to be feared even more than Islamists.
    Time to level the playing field.

    • SADIE


      • Bookworm

        Oh, Sadie!!  I’m still laughing.


    Europe’s Jewish community is under one million.  In a few more generations they will be Judenfrei and will have to contend with the new improved Black [burkah] Death – the one they invited with open arms. The 2030’s will be the 1930’s with one caveat – it will be the remaining Christians.

  • Danny Lemieux

    In one word, Book…”oil!”
    This is the Eurabia policy at work. On the surface, it is ludicrous that the EUros would demonize the Jews, who have contributed so much to Europe’s history, culture, business and science, in order to curry favor with the very Islamic forces that have contributed nothing but welfare dependency, misery and terrorism and who remain dedicated to EUrope’s destruction and subjugation.
    Below the surface, the EUros have,in their hearts, already surrendered and slipped quietly into dhimmi acquiescence to their masters.

  • Ymarsakar

    When the Left kept saying we were in Iraq for oil, eventually I figured out that they were talking about themselves. They always assume the world and we who live in it, are as evil as they are. That’s in fact a courtesy. If they don’t think we are as evil and smart as they are, then we’re dumb and equal to livestock.

  • Ymarsakar

    One of the reasons why Israel has tolerated the presence of the UN on their policies is due to American power. In the old days where the American giant was a useful and powerful enough ally, it warranted some costs such as the UN and being in it.
    But now that Israel can no longer get the Leftist Regime, no matter what they offer them, to support enemies of Islam, there’s little benefit to them staying in the UN merely to please the US leadership.
    The UN was originally created to hobble Soviet Russia, after FDR the Democrat made them into the bear warmachine. Now that the Soviets are no longer in power (just the KGB), their masterless weapons are using the UN against us. But that’s nothing new.

  • David Foster

    I don’t think EU hostility toward Israel is primarily motivated by oil. Thought experiment: suppose all European countries made heavy use of nuclear power (as France already does) and improvements in battery technology made electric vehicles totally practical, eliminating most need for oil. Would European governments and societies become friendly to Israel?

    • Ymarsakar

      The hostility probably isn’t. The buddying up with Saddan Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood? Oh more likely there.

  • Matt_SE

    As far as European leftists (but I repeat myself) are concerned, Israel’s greatest sin was that they started winning wars. That made them independent.
    The same contempt is shown towards any minority person that “leaves the plantation” in the US.
    It’s easy for leftists to patronize minorities, but these downtrodden must always remember their place. Having a useful victim-client is more important to the left than any other quality. Hence, the effort to excuse the barbarity of Islamists in general and Palestinians in particular.

  • Matt_SE

    Come to think of it, it is also reflected in Whittaker Chambers’ notes about former Communists: Communists and fellow-travellers despised former Communists above all others. These people were regarded as not just dissenters, but apostates.
    Psychologically, this makes sense: criticism from an enemy can always be rationalized away. But criticism from the inner circle is more difficult, as they cannot be accused of ignorance. The rejection of the ideology is a de-facto rejection of anyone who still believes in it.
    The rejection of European leftism is a rejection of self-loathing and apologia.

    • Bookworm

      That, Matt_SE, is an excellent point.

  • Mike Devx

    Of course the difference is obvious.  One is Israel, always to be treated with special condemnation.  The other is not Israel, and therefore to be treated fairly.
    Israel could cure cancer and end poverty, and the EU headlines would read, “Israel callously ignores the special needs of Palestinians”.  And the UN would then pass resolutions promoting sanctions against Israel.

  • Ymarsakar

    The Demoncrats treat American patriots the same way the Jihadists in the UN treat Israel.