Challenging the EU on Judea and Samaria

Last week (and a couple of weeks prior) I wrote about the EU undermining Israel’s sovereignty as well as its violation of international law through their illegal construction of buildings for Palestinian-only use in Judea and Samaria.

The Israeli NGO Legal Grounds, which promotes Israel’s legal rights to Judea and Samaria, has now challenged EU Ambassador Lars Faaborg-Andersen to a debate with international law expert Prof. Eugene Kontorovich to discuss the latter’s false assertion that the 1948 Armistice Lines are an international border:

The EU Ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, participated last week in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper’s anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) conference where he reiterated the EU’s stance that Israeli “settlements” are “illegal under international law” and are “a hindrance to the peace process.”

EU Ambassador Lars Faaborg-Andersen

Faaborg-Andersen additionally termed the 1949 armistice line an “internationally recognized border” even though the 1949 line is neither internationally recognized, nor is it a border.

Legal Grounds, a grassroots initiative established to inform about and promote Israel’s legal land rights, called on the Ambassador to publicly debate Professor Eugene Kontorovich, a renowned expert on international law at Northwestern University and senior legal think tank fellow in Israel.

Legal Grounds claim the EU’s stance contravenes the officially recognized rightful presence of the State of Israel in Judea and Samaria according to international law: “These rights were recognized unequivocally by the League of Nations, and reaffirmed in Chapter 80 of the UN Charter. Moreover, the EU stance runs contrary to its previous commitment implicit in its having witnessed and signed Oslo II, an agreement based on stipulations by UN resolutions 242 and 338 that Israel is entitled to ‘secure and recognized’ borders.”

Legal Grounds believe that Faaborg-Andersen should be held accountable for his inaccurate statement regarding legal facts.

I would love to see such a debate. It would be riveting and enlightening. I would place my money on Kontorovich to win the debate handily. Maybe that’s why we haven’t heard any agreement from the Europeans tot he debate – yet.

The EU should not only be held accountable for inaccurate statements (or bald lies). They should also be held accountable for their ridiculous obsession with Israel over the much more immediate threats from Islamist terrorism, as the above Facebook cartoon from Legal Grounds’ page so accurately expresses.  This obsession with Israel and the territories has worked to their own detriment, as they ignore Muslim anti-West terrorism at their own peril.

This entry was posted in indigenous rights, International relations, Lawfare and Delegitimization and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Challenging the EU on Judea and Samaria

  1. Charlie in NY says:

    The EU obsession may be explained in part as the continuing spill-over from agreements made by some of its member states with Palestinian terror groups where they offered political support against Israel and a blind eye to activities on their soil in exchange for immunity from Palestinian terror attacks against their property or citizens.

    • anneinpt says:

      That is certainly part of it Charlie, but I’m not sure that’s the whole story. The Palestinians themselves don’t really care that much about the “territories”. They care about having the whole of Israel, or rather, about the Jews NOT having any part of Israel. The settlements are just a convenient excuse, to make their antisemitic motives more palatable to the delicate feelings of the West. Call it “occupation” and the West can feel righteously justified in opposing Israel.

      My theory is that the EU, and the West in general, obsess about the settlements, and about Israel in general, because of their guilt feelings for the Holocaust. If they feel they can justifiably condemn Israel for “settler colonialism” or apartheid or occupation or imperialism or global warming (OK, I made that last one up) then they can feel less guilty about the Holocaust.

      That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it.

  2. Reality says:

    I would love to see this debate.I hope they can get it going and televise it world wide

  3. Earl says:

    In Toronto last week at the Munk Debates, Nigel Farage and Mark Steyn wiped the highly-biased-idiotarian floor in a debate with the execrable Canadians Louise al-Bour and Michael Shabas. Steyn/Farage dam’-near won the debate outright, having based their arguments on fact and logic. Progressives, of course, don’t “do” facts…

  4. Brian Goldfarb says:

    Sorry to be a party pooper, but the pro’s won the debate, having lost ground during it from the pre-debate percentages.

    But…the debate was about Europe (and other areas) accepting those fleeing from, in particular, Syria (but also Iraq) for the saf(er) haven of Europe. Nigel Farage is the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which harbours, arguably, proportionately more dubious characters than the British Labour Party: actual racists as well as antisemites.

    That is, it wasn’t about the West Bank/Judea/Samaria, but about a completely different matter. And while I find Simon Schama not the nicest person I’ve ever met (and I have met him), some of his sentiments are in the right place. At least he thinks that Europe should do the right thing re people fleeing death and destruction in Syria…and if we Jews don’t think that this is the right thing to do (the UK and the Americas failure to admit Jews fleeing Nazism anyone?), then our moral compasses needs resetting.

    Folks, Nigel Farage would set the UK free to float off into the Atlantic and the hell with refugees from terror.

    Is that what you really want?

    • anneinpt says:

      No, I don’t agree with a lot of Farage’s stance. But I also don’t agree that Britain should take in unlimited Muslim immigration as proposed by many on the Left (I couldn’t access the videos at Earl’s link so I don’t know what was actually said). Look at what’s been happening in Germany and Sweden for some immediate sorry examples.

      Just because the West did not accept Jewish refugees in the 1940s does not mean that it is right to accept unlimited Muslim refugees today. One does not cancel out the other. Of course some Muslim refugees should be accepted, but only after careful vetting.

      Keep in mind that those Jews who did make it over to England were then imprisoned during the war as “enemy aliens”, my own grandfather included. Can you imagine the outcry if something similar was applied today to the Muslims? This is without mentioning the revolting American imprisonment of Japanese-origin citizens during the war.

      Let some refugees in, but only after careful vetting and careful supervision afterwards. if this sounds like racism, so be it. The Jews were never a threat to their host societies. On the contrary, every society which hosted Jews benefited from the relationship.

      The same cannot be said about the Muslim immigrants. How many terrorists have they produced? How many people have they killed? Look no further than Paris or Brussels.

      • Brian Goldfarb says:

        “Just because the West did not accept Jewish refugees in the 1940s does not mean that it is right to accept unlimited Muslim refugees today.” Anne, that’s not what I said, and, without seeing the whole debate, I’ve no idea if that’s what Schama said anyway. However, I suspect that he didn’t say that, but I equally suspect that Farage said exactly the opposite: don’t let any of them in and the hell whether they all drown in the Med. (or implications to that effect – and populism on that level appeals to many: see only Donald Trump in the US).

        Whatever else he is, Schama is far from being part of the Rancid Left. He is clearly and plainly a Zionist and has never (in public) said a word against the right of Israel to exist in peace and security; he has never been associated with any aspect of BDS, etc. However, he and I probably agree on the matter of those Israeli citizens living on the eastern side of the old Green Line.

        All he and I are saying is that there is a humanitarian crisis in the Middle East and we can’t just sit idly by, as the west did in the 1930s, and repeat a modern equivalent of their attitudes towards the Jews, this time aimed at Muslims. Sure, given Islamism, Jihadists and ISIS (etc, ad nauseam), strenuous efforts should be made to weed out the actual or potential terrorists. But to just shut the doors, full stop, puts us in the same category as the west back then.

        Do we (all of us, not just Jews – and I don’t believe that “we should know better” because of the Shoah, if only because that phrase applies equally to the whole of Europe and beyond since that ghastly time) really want to be like that? I would hope not. And if we do, then I repeat my earlier phrase: our moral compasses need re-adjusting.

  5. Earl says:

    @ Goldfarb:

    Based on the leftist tilt of the Toronto event attendees, that performance by Steyn and Farage was, for all intents and purposes, a victory. It was an astonishing shift in support.
    To answer your last question, “yes”. A resounding “yes”. Let the UK throw off the yoke of anti-democratic EU diktats and intermeddling; enforce effectively its own border security; commence pursuing trade deals with the rest of the world (recall the Commonwealth and the original EEC) and the EU on terms favourable to it. And, yes, contain impenetrably the ummah behind its own borders and let it fight out the Mohammedan world’s Thirty Years’ War.

    I recall mooting of our host here once, “being an Israeli is not signing on to be a member of a collective suicide pact”, and I apply this principle equally to the West when dealing with those fleeing strife in the ummah.

    • Brian Goldfarb says:

      Earl, while I am concerned as to what happens, particularly, in the US, I do not take it upon myself to tell US voters what they should be doing. So butt out of European & UK politics and stop, in particular, praising a rather unpleasant populist like Farage, who is more than happy to entertain racists and antisemites in his party.

      Beyond that, see my further response to Anne above.

  6. Earl says:


    I won’t apologize for doing everything I can to preserve post-Enlightenment, Judaeo-Christian-secular civilization by any legal means available. But I will leave this with you, sent to me recently by an older Jewish pal of mine, a Shoah survivor whose work will be known to you:

    Small wonder that, when Eichmann was to be executed, an Austrian-born designer at ___, who had served in Hitler’s army, said to me:
    “I can’t believe they will kill him; Jews don’t do that “
    It’s too heavy a price to pay, for being a light unto the nations.
    My flashlight batteries have died and I don’t intend to replace them.

Comments are closed.