The European Union is being challenged to explain why it treats Israel's "occupation" of (its homeland) territories in the West Bank differently from Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara and Turkey's occupation of Northern Cyprus. Raphael Ahren of the Times of Israel reports:

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. 

I think the technical explanation for this is: "because we say so."

Hat tip: Cliff Thier