Talk:Israel–European Union relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is not neutral[edit]

This article is not neutral as it only talks about one point of view. The article reads more like a commentary from a political lobby group who are in favour of accession of Israel to the EU. It is also very poorly organised. -- Andem 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think the whole article could use a rewrite. Some of it could stay, but it definitely needs a lot done. Perhaps someone who knows the subject well could try to tackle it? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've managed to rewrite the article in a pretty satisfactory fashion. Feel free to to write to me here if you think any changes or more information is required. -- ErezR1

I haven't read through the article, because it lacks clear headings. Most users don't want to sift through a bunch of text to find out what they want to know. See Detroit for an example of an article with lots of nice subsections. It becomes much easier to get to what you want like that! Thanks for your contributions though, it does look better. -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 01:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll try to reorganize it. But is there a reason why my editing no longer appears as the current version of the article? the information I've added was saved in the page's editing history, but the older version is now the current version. Was there something wrong about my editing or is this some kind of mistake? 11:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ErezR1 11:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it's back now... -- ErezR1 12:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I live in Europe and, a far as my humble opinion is concerned, I would be very much in favour of Israel joining the EU. But that's my personal humble opinion, my POV. From a different, more neutral standpoint, the one expected from Wikipedia, I would agree that this article does not conform to standards and it might not belong here. And one needs not really decide if the entry is POV: at least, it surely tackles with an event which is described as hopefully happening at some point in the future, and which has not taken place yet. Wikipedia does not publish original research, nor does it claim to be able and foresee the future. The entry should be either deleted, or reworded in such a way as to describe the existance of a political vision favouring full EU membership for Israel, and not the pros of Israel becoming a member party of the EU. By the way, I think that this entry is being sponsored by an Italian NGO known as "Nonviolent Radical Party". Their homepage links directly to here at present. 83.190.203.57 12:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of organization[edit]

This page is not organized at all. Perhaps someone who knows more about the subject could fix this? Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent wikifying, does anyone still think we need the Wikify template, or should we remove it? Also, I'm not so sure we still need the neutrality template, but I won't be the one to remove it since I was the one who rewrote most of the article, so someone might think I'm biased. -- ErezR1 12:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright[edit]

Ruth ds (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) the last section of the article copies from a paper that is marked as 'please do not quote without author's permission' (in the reference there is a link to the paper). I happen to know the author who is not very happy about the fact that she was not asked for permission, and certainly did not give the authorisation to copy whole paragraphs of her draft paper into the wiki article. Who did that? Can anything be done about this? Besides, some updates are necessary.[reply]

please expand[edit]

Could someone expand this article, it's a good topic. The article should be organised better and cleaned up. It should also be expanded to include some of the negative implications for the European Union if Israel was to join. For example, it could put Europe in a very sticky situation with regards to conflicts in the Middle East. It could potentially increase the threat of terrorism to other European countries. It would be wondered how the several million muslims in Europe would react to Israel joining. Israel is also in Asia, (by traditional definition) so there would be some opposed to such an expansion. What about the international implications? Currently the United States has much influence over Israel, as it's staunch supporter, what could happen when the European Union takes over this role. Then theres the positive economical impact it could have on Europe as a developed nation entering the EU. There are other arguments as Israel's culture is very much related back to Europe's. I think these topics should be mentioned in the article. 124.179.249.174 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what you noted can be added one way or another, but as far as I'm aware we can only speculate on much of the rest of what you say because there isn't enough academic research about it thus far. ErezR1 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV check[edit]

I've tagged this for a POV check - despite the recent revisions it still reads like a promotional piece telling readers how wonderful it would be if Israel were to join the EU. Cynical 08:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article needs to be modified to reflect a neutral point of view. Even with the current edits, it still projects a pro-Israeli tone. I think that it would help the article if more information is added about the disagreements between individual EU member countries and Israel. MetaSurfer (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a new version[edit]

I've submitted a better organized version with some more information. Please share your reflections on it. ErezR1 22:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

I'm wondering why the title is Accession of Israel to the European Union and not Israel and the European Union. For other countries, "Accession of COUNTRY to the European Union" is only used if the country is an official candidate or acceding country, while it's "COUNTRY and the European Union" for other countries. (Stefan2 03:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I personally don't mind calling it Israel and the European Union, but in addition - and not instead of - to Accession of Israel to the European Union, because half of the article talks about the possibilty of accession of Israel to the EU or the EU's internal market, and the other half is more of a prologue to that part. -- ErezR1 14:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this is indeed the de facto-standard used. —Nightstallion (?) 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe[edit]

is isreal even geographicly in europe? i dont think so--Slogankid 10:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Israel is not in Europe. The article also discusses this point, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accession_of_Israel_to_the_European_Union#Israel.27s_position_regarding_the_Copenhagen_criteria -- ErezR1 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all its flaws, Turkey does have European territory. To take Israel in would be stretching the definition Europe too far.

Although the "exact" geographical boundaries of Europe are somewhat disputed, I suppose it would be safe to say that Cyprus is also _not_ in Europe. However, The Republic of Cyprus (i.e., the Greek part) is deemed to have a European "culture and people" (don't ask me how this is defined, because I don't know :-) and is a member state of the European Union. I suppose a similar argument could be made (perhaps with a bit of stretch) for the Israelis. -- Grimne 08:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is in your own comment: you talk about "the Greek part". Does Greece belong to Europe? Yes it does, the Greeks "invented" the word Europe, Greece is a member of the EU, so the Greeks in Cyprus have a strong cultural link to Europe. --93.40.141.143 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French Guinea is not physically in Europe...its in South America but it is part of the EU as it is part of a European state. Israel is a modern, democratic state which has more in common with other EU nations than its neighbours. If we ignore the Occupied Territories for a moment, Israel would be far easier to intergrate into the EU than the Ukraine, Serbia, or a number of other European nations. 79.75.184.8 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
French Guinea is part of France! France is in Europe. Isreal is not.
Cyprus and Malta are islands in the Mediterranean Sea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.226.162 (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Return vs. European free migration[edit]

Does anyone have any good refs on how these might interact? I imagine Europe probably doesn't want to open itself to the entire Jewish diaspora. —Ashley Y 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it would be a problem. At present, both Ireland and Italy have "laws of return" similar to the Israeli one. Any US (or Canadian or Argentinian or whatever) citizens with an Italian or Irish heritage already have full right to become EU citizens by claiming an Irish or Italian passport. 83.190.203.57 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually more of a problem for Israel. If Israel joined, then Israelis would gain free right of movement and settlement in all the EU nations (perhaps initially phased in over a few years, as is happening with the new eastern European members) BUT Israel would also have to accept that any EU citizen would be free to settle in Israel, Jewish or not. This clashes with Israels law of return, and desire to keep Israel a Jewish majority state. Maybe the article should discuss this more, as it's a HUGE issue. Given that Israel is already under demographic pressure, with the prospect of it's rapidly growing Arab population possibly threatening the state's Jewish majority in the future, does Israel really want to open the doors to unrestricted, non-Jewish European immigration as well? Are there any quotes from the Israeli politicians mentioned as supporting EU membership on how they'd handle this? Indisciplined 15:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I would also like to see a lot more discussion of this issue. —Ashley Y 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Sephardim have some kind of right to return to Spain since the 1920s. --84.20.17.84 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli politician Avigador Liberman want Israel to join the European Union. Liberman is very anti-arabs so if he want Israel to join the EU, then I guess that hes not afraid that muslims will come here and Israel would stop being a jewish country. Here a link http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=10954 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.159.170 (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is not a Jewish country. It is a Zionist country. I don't wish to speak politically but the proper definition must be applied. Most Europeans do not feel the current state of Israel nor the state in it's own respect is justifiable and the Palestinians are treated as second class on their soil. Even the majority of Jewish Israeli's express this. Tom97.106.177.128 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds[edit]

In 2004 the total volume of bilateral trade (excluding diamonds) came to over €15 billion.

This exclusion awakens my interest. It should be explained in a note or linked to some article on Diamond trade, Diamond trade of Israel, or Diamond trade of the European Union.

This comes of the top of my head. Including diamonds in the trade balance is somewhat problematic, as the value added is relatively small compared to the total value, so it tends to inflate the amount of trade. Also, Israel is a pretty big processor of diamonds, although it does not produce any.

"One of the founding nations of the EU - Germany - has a Law of Return quite similar to Israel's"[edit]

This isn't actually true, is it? Germany allows people whose ancestors were citizens of Germany to return, but AFAIK it does not allow the descendants of Anglo-Saxons to "return" to Angeln and Saxony. Israel, by contrast, allows all Jews to "return" to Israel, even if they can't trace a particular ancestral line to anyone who lived in the modern state or even mandate Palestine. —Ashley Y 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that above POV is inaccurate, as Germany allows "volksdeutsch", that is anyone with German roots (including baltic Germans [Volga Germans], that were never part of the modern german state) to get German citizenship. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person".[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.58.6 (talk • contribs)

But "German ethnic origin" only goes back a few hundred years: the Volga Germans, for instance, emigrated in 1763. By contrast, Jews may "return" to Israel even if they've had no ancestral connection to the land for 2000 years. Even the Anglo-Saxon connection to Angeln and Saxony is only 1500 years old, but that doesn't make the English "volksdeutsch" in any German legal sense. —Ashley Y 18:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1/5 of the US population has German heritage that is much more recent then the Saxons. They do not have the right of return. As an American you have to prove direct German heritage of three generations, as I am currently trying to do. My Jewish friends just have to prove Jewish ethnicity, they don't need three generations of birth certificates like I do.

I don't believe this is actually true. In reality, the most important thing the German government looks when applying for a visa or citizenship is your ability to speak, read and write German. You are not ethnically nor culturally German if you can't speak the language or you have no connection to the country. 3 generations is a lot of time. Most of your relatives would either be distant or dead. I can't verify all this because I don't know German law great. But I know there is no law similar to that of Israel.

The law of return is more ideological than actually physical. If anyone is naive enough to believe that Ashkenazi (indigenous to the Rhineland) trace origins to Israel-Palestine 2,000 years ago, they'd be foolish. The Roma people trace origins to Northern Indians. Many are physically distinguishable from the rest of the European population (although some are mixed, especially assimilated ones). Ashkenazis are usually not physically distinguishable. And even if they were, it wouldn't be as a Mid Easterner. The religion spread and there is a lack of hard evidence even showing Judaism could have spread to Europe by migration during most of the first millenia. Ashkenazis are a group that adopted Judaism. Not genetically Arab/Middle Eastern/Israeli. Tom97.106.177.128 (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel will not join EU[edit]

in Europe there are a lot of Muslims. If israel joins the EU, then the muslims will move to Israel and the jews will lose Israel and again - the jews will not have a country

The Jews will lose Israel in any case. The Muslim population in Israel has a higher growth ratio than the Jewish population, so the Jewish population will be outnumbered by the Muslim population in the future. (58.188.97.134 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If Israel joins the EU, then the Tribulation will begin.--168.13.191.66 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A rather intresting statement, but then I see that your IP address is in Georgia, USA.....'fundie' land!79.75.184.8 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would European Muslims move to Israel? They have a better standard of living in most Western EU nations than in Israel, they wont speak Hebrew (important if you want a job), and there is plenty of discrimination in Israel. If Israel joined the EU, it would not surprise me if there was a shift of people from Israel to other EU, both Jewish and non-Jewish, espcailly when conflicts gets worse.
Regarding the Muslim growth rate in Israel, it's decreasing by 0.1% a year. So at the current rate the Jewish and Muslim growth rate in Israel will be equal in 2020. Etams 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etams (talk • contribs)
There was a report of Jews moving from Russia to Germany in greater numbers than Israel in recent years due to the violence and general economic state in Israel and a rather generous German government. 79.75.184.8 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has no civic marriage, and is not able to impose a core curriculum that includes basic math and English on its large ultra-orthodox education system. Any discussion of Israel joining the EU should mention the gaps between the EU and Israeli legal situation with respect to the status of religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19C:8396:90AC:DBD0:6E7F:832B (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the concerns raised at AfD discussion[edit]

The current deletion discussion for this article suggests that most editors think the article should exist. However, several have raised concerns, including tone, POV and crystal ball speculations about hypothetical future events.

I'd like to suggest that we follow Wikipedia guidelines and remove hypothetical speculation about future Israeli membership in the EU and focus the article on historic and current relations between Israel and the EU. eliminating speculative material may also help solve some POV concerns. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the accession of Israel to the EU should be removed, basically everything in heading 2 (Possible future developments in EU-Israel relations). I have removed it. If anyone else believes it should be in here, please elaborate. My reasons (along with others) are clear.--Waqas1987 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the section's removal. A section such as "Possible future developments" is sheer crystal ball and didn't belong. Majoreditor (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No citation[edit]

Although Israel is not located in Europe it is culturally considered part of Europe in every way.

Says who? 20% of Israel are Arab Palestinians. And the majority of the rest of Israeli's are the descendants of Mid Easterners and North Africans who were expelled from their countries when the state was created. The language of the Israeli Jewish community is Hebrew. That isn't a European language. Please provide a reasonable explanation if this is to remain. Tom97.106.177.128 (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is overall a lack of citation through the entire paragraph. It also sounds like a bias opinion. I would like to see citation from those regarding those countries support. How could Israel virtually be apart of Europe? They are no one near them. Just because they trade and participate in Euro sporting events because they don't with Arab nations doesn't make them European. To be a European country, you have to be on the European mainland. Russia isn't. Turkey is debatable. There'll be no EU membership with the poor human rights their imposing on Palestinians though. It'd never get voted through. Tom97.106.177.128 (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph should be re-written and the uncited sentences should be removed. But what you did is unacceptable. you can't delete half a paragraph and leave it this way, starting in the middle of a sentence. A paragraph can't start with "it also takes part in sporting events". Ben Gershon - בן גרשון 12:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by בן גרשון (talk • contribs)

I probably should have deleted that sentence too so the overall paragraph looked more relevent. Tom97.106.177.128 (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to discuss this. I've very open in terms of what should be out there. We need citation though. It maintains the integrity of the article. You can't say Israel considers themselves apart of Europe because that is an opinion. It is not geographically located in Europe and it doesn't natively speak a European language which is more than enough for it to not be in Europe. I'm going to revise it again. Please do not be disrespectful and change it back or revise it without writing an expalanation on here. Tom97.106.177.128 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point here should be to describe that Israel sees itself as European and that Europe recognises Israel as quasi-European in many instances, which could be the base for a claim to EU membership. This section could also describe on what these conceptions are based (immigration from Europe, Zionism as originally European idea, shared values ...), and what other conceptions of what the EU should be like stand in the way of an EU membership. --141.91.136.41 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a biased opinion. You are saying Israel sees itself as European and that Europe recognizes Israel as quasi-European. This is an open ended opinion that varies upon Israeli and European. Like I said, Israel's two official languages are Hebrew and Arabic, which are not official languages in any of the 27 EU nations. Even if you argue their ancestors, the two largest European languages spoken in modern Israel were English and Russian. Most Ashkneazi Jews who migrated there were German, Polish and Yiddish speakers, as well as Russian speakers (Russia is not apart of EU though and often not considered apart of Europe).

Now if you had citation to that quote, the argument for why they may become apart of the EU would be notable. Zionism should be described as one political ideology within Ashkenazi Jews who were indigenous to Europe. Tom97.106.177.128 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the citation. The reason I was being particularly intense about it is because this page will get hit up a lot with the flotilla raid and Turkey's application to the EU. TomNyj0127 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough beating around the bush. Years ago the writer of this article was asked to cite evidence for his claim that Europeans perceive Israel as a part of Europe. This was not done and so the nonsense claim should be removed altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrodesIII (talk • contribs) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EU Directive[edit]

"In 2013 the EU adopted a binding directive according to which the Israeli government will be required to state in any future agreements with the EU that settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are outside the state of Israel. The directive implements an earlier EU foreign ministers' declaration that "all agreements between the state of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967"".

What is the name and number of this directive - can't find it on the EU website Vernon White . . . Talk 15:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz says that the document is a Commission Guideline Vernon White . . . Talk 16:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The beeb says thay are guidelines http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23327014 There are mixed messages about when they come into force. Vernon White . . . Talk 16:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, the Guardian source refers to it repeatedly as a directive. Also Jewish press, AP and Jerusalem Post refer to it as a directive. --Dailycare (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will be worth checking the Official Journal of the EU tomorrow, where one source said it would be published. Vernon White . . . Talk 20:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The European Council Decision of 10 Dec 2012, on which these guidelines are based is HERE Vernon White . . . Talk 20:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an earthquake[edit]

Guidelines and commentary are here http://jfjfp.com/?p=45971Vernon White . . . Talk 20:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official publication of the Commission Guidelines in the Official Journal of the European Union is in Volume 56 of 19 July 2013, pages 9 to 11. The Official reference to the Guidelines is 213/c205/05. Hope the article will be amended to remove the word "Directive". Vernon White . . . Talk 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vernon, since sources use the term "directive", why should it be removed from the article? The text says "must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967". That sounds like a directive to me, although of course it's the sources that decide, not me. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the commentary on the Guidelines, linked in the first item in this conversation? The mistake is attributed to a Haaretz article, widely copied. A Directive has to be implemented in each member-state.A Directive is printed in the "L" series of the Official Journal. The Guidelines apply only to the Commission's activities funding activities of Israeli projects, within the 2014-2020 EU budget. Hope this makes sense. Vernon White . . . Talk 21:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yair Rosenberg describes himself as a "I'm a writer, editor, academic Jewish studies enthusiast, political junkie and film buff". The Guardian and the Associated Press are more reliable than him in characterizing an EU instrument, IMO. For what it's worth, here are some more sources that employ the term "directive": 1, 2, 3, 4. --Dailycare (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Directive (European Union) and judge whether the Commission Guidelines meet the definition of a Directive. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Shabi, the author of the Guardian article is a Journalist specialising in the Middle East, not an expert on EU procedures. She is commenting on Israeli media and political response to whatever came out of the EU Press Office. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed the Guardian's "Readers' Editor" about the article, by the Guardian's Jerusalem correspondent, cited as ref 31: EU takes tougher stance on Israeli settlements (The Guardian, July 16, 2013)Vernon White . . . Talk 19:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have eight sources that describe the guidelines as a directive. By the way, what essential difference do you think exists between a directive and a binding guideline? As you're proposing to use one instead of the other, it seem that you feel there is a semantic difference. Concerning the definition of a EU directive it's not our place to decide if this is a "directive" or no. If sources describe it as one, then that's it. --Dailycare (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Directive says it is a Directive in its title. The last few clauses of a Directive say when and how member states must transpose the Directive into the law of their own country. Take this one as an example: Directive 2005/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the mutual recognition of seafarers' certificates issued by the Member States and amending Directive 2001/25/EC The Guidelines that we are discussing are binding on the Commission but NOT binding on member states.Vernon White . . . Talk 16:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are UK based, you might try checking this problem out with the EU Commission's London Office: http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/about_us/office_in_london/index_en.htm

Vernon White . . . Talk 16:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also something called Europe Direct, which may be useful http://europa.eu/europedirect/meet_us/index_en.htm Vernon White . . . Talk 16:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if secondary sources refer to it as a directive, then as far as we're concerned it's a directive. If secondary sources referred to it as a "gwetzhog", then that's what would go in the article. It's WP:OR to dig up definitions of directives and then investigate whether the shoe fits. We have eight secondary sources that refer to it as a directive. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gwetzhog - that's a new one. Add it to the list of imaginary truths such as Invisible Pink Unicorn and the "binding Directive" that caused everyone such alarm.Vernon White . . . Talk 19:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Ashton: Cairo speech[edit]

My McAffee site advisor doesn't like this link: "In late 2009 and 2010, a Swedish-drafted EU paper called for Jerusalem to be divided and become the joint capital of Israel and a Palestinian state, and criticized Israel's building in East Jerusalem.In Cairo speech, EU’s Catherine Ashton very critical of Israeli policies". Is it necessary? Can an alternative reference be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernon39 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia (country)–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israel–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberbot II (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israel–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ Op-Ed - Not RS[edit]

This Wall Street Journal Op-ed linked here is cited as a statement of fact to back up assertions against NGOs. WP:RS is pretty clear about this, when referring to op-eds it says that they "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." If this were an article about Gerald M. Steinberg's views on NGOs then it would be a reliable source for what he thinks of them, it isn't a reliable source for facts because it's his opinion. @יניב הורון: I am attempting to resolve this through discussion (per WP:BRD) despite your 1RR violation. - SantiLak (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as you correctly quoted "op-eds are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author..." As WP:BIASED says, reliability is always in context. Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. There is nothing really controversial or disputed here. I think you are splitting hairs at this point. The article clearly states this is the opinion of the critics (not undisputed fact), followed in the next sentence by what NGO Monitor accuses the EU of doing. On the other hand, saying "human rights organizations" (which is not supported by source) isn't a non-controversial statement. They claim to care about human rights only, but that's a disguise for political activities against Israel, which is exactly what critics say. That's the whole point.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2018[edit]

change "Former Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman" to "Israeli Minister of Defense Avigdor Lieberman" Mwishlight (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Danski454 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the time he made that stmt in 2007 he was Minister of Strategic Affairs.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the EU has tried to present Tel Aviv as the Israeli capital[edit]

Wow! Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Agreement/Import Taxes?[edit]

The article mentions that there have been agreements between the EU and Israel for quite some time, and that trade agreements are a large part of that - but I can't find anything about whether or not that means that goods imported from Israel to the EU are exempt from customs/import taxes? If that kind of information belongs in a different article, feel to point me there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:959:AD20:C871:2BBC:964E:6A2E (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As to the part of "EU membership for Israel"[edit]

I think that it’s appropriate to add to the paragraph " Although Israel is not geographically located in Europe, it is a member in many European transnational federations and frameworks, and takes part in many European sporting events and the Eurovision Song Contest." The European frameworks in which israel takes part,such as CERN. 87.68.213.188 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops forgot to log in! It’s me!
עמית לונן (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–European_Union_relations&oldid=1207751905"