An article in the Israeli daily Ma'ariv asks a pertinent question. Why do the EU and UN adopt diametrically different responses to Cyprus and Israel?

'When the Turkish army invaded [Cyprus] in 1974, approximately 200 thousand Greek refugees fled south to the Greek section of the island while approximately 50 thousand Turkish refugees fled northward. During the last three decades, there have been many incidents along the border fence when Greek refugees tried to return to their homes in the Turkish section. During negotiations for reunification, the Greeks demanded that all of the refugees and their descendents return to the Turkish section. Obviously, the Turks were opposed. When preparing their plan, the United Nations and European Union did not accept the Greeks’ demand to allow the refugees to return! The second provision related to Turkish “settlers” and “settlements”. After the invasion, the Turks brought farmers from Turkey and settled them in northern Cyprus. They settled there, built settlements, increased the number of Turks on the island and contributed to the agricultural economy of Turkish Cyprus. During the negotiations, the Greeks demanded that the Turkish “settlers” return to Turkey. The Turks were opposed. The United Nations and European Union supported the Turkish position and left the “settlers” and “settlements” in place, despite the Greek demand...

'The irony is that the EU, which is proud of its wisdom and understanding, (as compared to Bush, for example) did not make ratification of the agreement a condition for Cyprus to join the Union. The result is quite embarrassing. As of this week, the Turkish army occupies a significant portion of an EU’s member state’s territory. In recent years, it seems that European leaders cannot sleep well at night because of the “Israeli occupation”. Does the “Turkish occupation” of one of their member countries also disturb their slumber?'

Cue for hollow laughter.