NationStates Jolt Archive

Big step in the right direction here. The French diplomat actually changed his opinion and payed attention to the undeniable facts.

http://www.ejpress.org/article/11283

PARIS (EJP)--- French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy declared last week he has changed his opinion on Israel's controversial separation barrier in light of its drastic effect on terror, forcing French authorities to clarify their position on the issue.

The barrier, which separates the West Bank from the rest of Israel, has garnered much criticism for creating a ghetto-style situation for the Palestinians and for allegedly appropriating Palestinian land on the Israeli side.

But although the French government has been critical of it since the start of its construction four years ago, Douste-Blazy has now reversed the feeling.

“I have significantly evolved on the matter of the separation fence” said Douste-Blazy on French Jewish television TFJ on Thursday. “Although the wall was a moral and ethical problem for me, when I realised terror attacks were reduced by 80 percent in the areas where the wall was erected, I understood I didn’t have the right to think that way.”

Douste-Blazy is the first high ranking French official to openly state his support for the security fence.

UN resolution

France welcomed in July 2004 the UN General Assembly resolution demanding that Israel dismantled the fence as suggested by the International Court of Justice.

Douste-Blazy’s unexpected comments induced the government to clarify its position on the wall.

“The question, for us, concerns the route of the fence rather than its mere existence,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei on Friday. “We recognise, of course, Israel’s right to defend itself from terror, but the route of the separation fence must not overlap Palestinian territory and prejudge the final solution.”

“We are keeping a wary eye on the situation,” added Mattei.

French government spokesman Jean-François Cope confirmed the statement on Sunday in an interview on Radio J.

“The route itself is not in question,” said Cope “it would be stupid to question Israel’s right to defend itself.”

Hamas vigorously criticised the French FM after his statement:

“It is the Palestinian nation which is suffering from the separation fence, not the French nation,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum. “Our nation is paying a high price for the separation and he [Douste-Blazy] must understand that the wall is the symbol of racial segregation and isolation.”

I have no hope for Chiraque but perhaps more French diplomats and leaders will see the light.

I see. When they agree to the US/Israeli policies it's "a step in the right direction" but the second they aren't so sure, it's Freedom Fries Time.

I see. When they agree to the US/Israeli policies it's "a step in the right direction" but the second they aren't so sure, it's Freedom Fries Time.

...I realised terror attacks were reduced by 80 percent...

A step in the right direction when the facts are recognized.

A step in the right direction when the facts are recognized.

It might stop attacks in the immediate vicinity. But it won't solve the root causes- namely economic stagnation of the Palestinians. In fact, the wall will be made to cut off Palestinians entirely and that means it'll aggravate said stagnation and continue to fuel the intifadah. And I doubt Israel has enough money to build a complete wall around itself.

Flip-flop. First they vote against it, now they ... :rolleyes:

It might stop attacks in the immediate vicinity. But it won't solve the root causes- namely economic stagnation of the Palestinians. In fact, the wall will be made to cut off Palestinians entirely and that means it'll aggravate said stagnation and continue to fuel the intifadah. And I doubt Israel has enough money to build a complete wall around itself.

The wall certainly does not help the economic situation in Palestine, I agree, but neither do corrupt leaders or Terrorist Organizations such as Hamas who are more interested in themselves or mayhem than they are their own people.

An 80% drop in terrorist attacks since the construction of the wall...this is a hard statistic to ignore. Is it the solution? As a temporary short term fix, yes, but not for the long term.

It might stop attacks in the immediate vicinity. But it won't solve the root causes- namely economic stagnation of the Palestinians. In fact, the wall will be made to cut off Palestinians entirely and that means it'll aggravate said stagnation and continue to fuel the intifadah. And I doubt Israel has enough money to build a complete wall around itself.

While its true it dosn't address the root causes or presents a long term solution.. one must admit, it comes a long way in resolving short term issues.. such as bus bombings and other suicide attacks, which instigate military responses which further propagates tension between Israel and Palestine.

With one less factor to deal with, it because easier to address the long term and root cauese becuase atleast for now, short term tensions are relieved.

But walls don't work!

It might stop attacks in the immediate vicinity. But it won't solve the root causes- namely economic stagnation of the Palestinians. In fact, the wall will be made to cut off Palestinians entirely and that means it'll aggravate said stagnation and continue to fuel the intifadah. And I doubt Israel has enough money to build a complete wall around itself.

Do you know what else won't stop them? A terrorist group, Hamas, in power and Fatah, a corrupt group second in command. What will stop them is Omar Karsou of the "Palestinian Democracy" party. Look him up.

The wall certainly does not help the economic situation in Palestine, I agree, but neither do corrupt leaders or Terrorist Organizations such as Hamas who are more interested in themselves or mayhem than they are their own people.

An 80% drop in terrorist attacks since the construction of the wall...this is a hard statistic to ignore. Is it the solution? As a temporary short term fix, yes, but not for the long term.


Israel is perfectly entitled to build a wall that sticks to its 1967 borders. Its where it doesnt that the problem is. Secondly, the attacks are not some strange natural phenomena, but causes by Israels occupation and settlement building. When will we see that stop?

Israel is perfectly entitled to build a wall that sticks to its 1967 borders. Its where it doesnt that the problem is. Secondly, the attacks are not some strange natural phenomena, but causes by Israels occupation and settlement building. When will we see that stop?

When? who knows. Sharon was withdrawing Israeli settlements, but what happened? He had a stroke, Hamas was elected and terrorists snuck across the border to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Rockets are fired at Israel from Gaza on a daily basis as well.

so I have no idea when it will stop, but right now the ball is in the Palestinians court. They need to elect responsible leaders. In the meantime, the Israelis have every right to protect themselves from terrorist attacks with the building of the Wall. And they have the right to hold on to the land they obtained after the surprise Arab attack in 1973 for strategic reasons. Though they were in the process of pulling out.

The wall is a short term and necessary solution.

When? who knows. Sharon was withdrawing Israeli settlements, but what happened? He had a stroke, Hamas was elected and terrorists snuck across the border to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Rockets are fired at Israel from Gaza on a daily basis as well.
.

Sharon was not withdrawing from the West Bank and ordered increased building around Arab East Jerusalem. Even the US passed comment.


so I have no idea when it will stop, but right now the ball is in the Palestinians court. .

And not the first world armed, well trained, Nuclear power occupier?


They need to elect responsible leaders.
.

And that would make a difference how?


In the meantime, the Israelis have every right to protect themselves from terrorist attacks with the building of the Wall. And they have the right to hold on to the land they obtained after the surprise Arab attack in 1973 for strategic reasons. .

Actually, they don't 'have the right' to hold it. As for 'stragtegic reasons' - what are they building civillian homes in land held for 'strageic reasons' for? If they intended to hold the West Bank to protect against an armoured assault, why wasnt the majority of it filled with tank-traps, land mines and observation posts? 40 years later the Israeli army isnt deployed to defend against some armoured horde on the border, but a bunch of badly armed civillians attacking colonies outside Israels borders.


Though they were in the process of pulling out.


A total withdrawal was never on the cards.

Sharon was not withdrawing from the West Bank and ordered increased building around Arab East Jerusalem. Even the US passed comment.



And not the first world armed, well trained, Nuclear power occupier?



And that would make a difference how?



Actually, they don't 'have the right' to hold it. As for 'stragtegic reasons' - what are they building civillian homes in land held for 'strageic reasons' for? If they intended to hold the West Bank to protect against an armoured assault, why wasnt the majority of it filled with tank-traps, land mines and observation posts? 40 years later the Israeli army isnt deployed to defend against some armoured horde on the border, but a bunch of badly armed civillians attacking colonies outside Israels borders.



A total withdrawal was never on the cards.

look, if you're part of the "Blame Israel Only" crowd, then I do not wish to continue this discussion. Both sides have their faults as well as their pluses. If you are not part of that crowd then the discussion can continue.

First of all, there are suicide bombers and terrorist fighters looking to kill jews, any jew, constantly and it is a serious problem. The Palestinian people are run by "leaders" who think this way and are more concerned about killing a Jew than saving a Palestinian.

1) Sharon had intended eventual withdrawl from the west bank. He was not going to do it all at once, but it was a part of his overall plan. He had even publicly stated it. Give the man some credit for pulling out of Gaza, which caused riots among his own people, before you bash him for not pulling out of the west bank.

2) I don't care how well trained or nuclear the Israelis are, fact is their enemies have compensated for this by brainwashing or bribing young, lost youth into blowing themselves and innocent civilians up at cafes, bus stops and shopping malls. So back to my original post, the Wall was necessary.

3) If you don't understand how the election of responsible, reformist leaders can benefit the Palestinian people, then I doubt I could explain it to you. The benefits should seem obvious. Israel will take the leaders more seriously in negotations, real efforts will be made to fight corruption and help the people, power will be given to the people and not to militias and political hacks, a sense of self responsibility will develop instead of blaming everything on the "zionists"... the benefits should be obvious.

4) The settlements and borders you see today in the West Bank and formerly in the Gaza strip were created after a surprise attack by Syria and Egypt in 1973. Israel was nearly destroyed in that attack and realized their 1967 borders were almost indefensible. After beating back the invaders they took Gaza and the West Bank to better fortify themselves and built settlements to keep an eye on hostile activity. A very aggressive move, but for the sake of their own survival they felt it was necessary. They won that war, they got that land. The victors usually gain land in a war. I do not feel it is in Israel's or the Palestinians best interest for the occupation to remain but this is an issue that must be settled in the long term...when things hopefully cool down.

5) a total withdrawl was not in the cards for the short term, no. But the majority of Israelis, save for the Likud party, do want to coexist peacefully with an autonomous Palestinian state.

and I will repeat myself, right now the ball is in the Palestinians' court. They need respectable and trustworthy leaders. Until then, walls are needed for immediate protection from bombers.

First of all, there are suicide bombers and terrorist fighters looking to kill jews, any jew, constantly and it is a serious problem. The Palestinian people are run by "leaders" who think this way and are more concerned about killing a Jew than saving a Palestinian..

Its debatable whether all of the groups take that attitude, or if any in fact do. The PFLP don't.


1) Sharon had intended eventual withdrawl from the west bank. He was not going to do it all at once, but it was a part of his overall plan. He had even publicly stated it. Give the man some credit for pulling out of Gaza, which caused riots among his own people, before you bash him for not pulling out of the west bank...

He never advocated a total withdrawal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1650426,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4470118.stm


2) I don't care how well trained or nuclear the Israelis are, fact is their enemies have compensated for this by brainwashing or bribing young, lost youth into blowing themselves and innocent civilians up at cafes, bus stops and shopping malls. So back to my original post, the Wall was necessary.
...

And do you think that perhaps the occupation had something to do with this?


3) If you don't understand how the election of responsible, reformist leaders can benefit the Palestinian people, then I doubt I could explain it to you. The benefits should seem obvious. Israel will take the leaders more seriously in negotations, real efforts will be made to fight corruption and help the people, power will be given to the people and not to militias and political hacks, a sense of self responsibility will develop instead of blaming everything on the "zionists"... the benefits should be obvious....

Arafat, for all his flaws, managed to get the PLO to drop calls for the destruction of Israel and recognise the right of Israel to exist. Yet from 1992 the pace of settlement building increased. Rather than allow a free and fair election the US made it clear to the reformist PLO candidatre Marwhan Barghouti, that they wouyld not deal with him if he ran. He didn't, and the rise of Hamas is the result. The US is not interested in reform, its interested in obedience. Thankfully the Palestinian people are far from the sheep America would have them be.


4) The settlements and borders you see today in the West Bank and formerly in the Gaza strip were created after a surprise attack by Syria and Egypt in 1973. Israel was nearly destroyed in that attack and realized their 1967 borders were almost indefensible. After beating back the invaders they took Gaza and the West Bank to better fortify themselves and built settlements to keep an eye on hostile activity. ....

emmmm....why would you build a civillian suburb to "keep an eye" on "hostile activity"? And why are they still being built despite a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt?


A very aggressive move, but for the sake of their own survival they felt it was necessary. They won that war, they got that land. The victors usually gain land in a war. ....

What part of Iraq did Kuwait get? What part of Germany did France take at the end of WW2?

The wall certainly does not help the economic situation in Palestine, I agree, but neither do corrupt leaders or Terrorist Organizations such as Hamas who are more interested in themselves or mayhem than they are their own people.

An 80% drop in terrorist attacks since the construction of the wall...this is a hard statistic to ignore. Is it the solution? As a temporary short term fix, yes, but not for the long term.
No it is not a long term solution which is why we should oppose it. The wall is choking the Palestinian market, which will turn Palestine into a veritable third-world society and ultimately increase terrorism.

A step in the right direction when the facts are recognized.
Yes, and an even bigger one when events such as the Palestinians having a bit of a civil war is also paid attention too.

I see. When they agree to the US/Israeli policies it's "a step in the right direction" but the second they aren't so sure, it's Freedom Fries Time.

Honestly, you've gotta learn how to read.

And besides, who the hell said "Freedom Fries" besides a couple of white supremecists and 2 members of congress?

Yes, and an even bigger one when events such as the Palestinians having a bit of a civil war is also paid attention too.

Too bad it'll never be recognized as long as gayness and abortion is around though. That and Iraq seem to be what's on peoples' minds nowadays :(

And besides, who the hell said "Freedom Fries" besides a couple of white supremecists and 2 members of congress?
IIRC the Airforce One menu board.

IIRC the Airforce One menu board.

...members of congress?

I should've said "members of the government".

emmmm....why would you build a civillian suburb to "keep an eye" on "hostile activity"?

Maybe it's the often scorned mentality of using human shields. Use civilians, preferably your own citizens, as meat shields and claim the enemy for being inhuman when they attack.

Of course you must later claim it's only despicable terrorists that do this and pretend those settlements don't exist when called to question.

Well, France does currently have a right wing government. If Sarkozy wins in 2007 you'll probably find yourself agreeing more and more with France.

I think it's just a case of "If you try something stupid, and it works, it wasn;t stupid."

Maybe it's the often scorned mentality of using human shields. Use civilians, preferably your own citizens, as meat shields and claim the enemy for being inhuman when they attack.

Of course you must later claim it's only despicable terrorists that do this and pretend those settlements don't exist when called to question.

I liken it to the idea of deciding that the front bumper of the car wasnt sturdy enough, and thus strapping Granny to it.

I see. When they agree to the US/Israeli policies it's "a step in the right direction" but the second they aren't so sure... it's Freedom Fries Time.LOL :D

Well, France does currently have a right wing government. If Sarkozy wins in 2007 you'll probably find yourself agreeing more and more with France.
Sarkosy=bush
Royale=blair
Le pen=the joker(annoying)
The rest beeing people who don't exist,even when the socialists where there,it was ,je retourne ma veste....They always change of opinon surely as elections come by...
Like in the Netherlands,,,,
What a circus....

Sarkosy=bush
Royale=blair
Le pen=the joker(annoying)
The rest beeing people who don't exist,even when the socialists where there,it was ,je retourne ma veste....They always change of opinon surely as elections come by...
Like in the Netherlands,,,,
What a circus....

Very much a circus. I'm hoping for Royale, although I'm afraid it'll end up with Sarkozy and Le Pen in the second round. Hopefully the left will realize that their best bet will be to rally behind Royale and hope the FN and UMP split the right wing vote.

To clarify I'm not that enamoured with Royale, but I dislike Sarkozy a lot more, and I should hope my opinion of M. Le Pen should be obvious.

Of course, my opinion doesn't matter so much because I'm not French, but I still think it's interesting.

Sarkosy=bush
Royale=blair
Le pen=the joker(annoying)
The rest beeing people who don't exist,even when the socialists where there,it was ,je retourne ma veste....They always change of opinon surely as elections come by...
Like in the Netherlands,,,,
What a circus....

You're so damn awesome it hurts.

While I don't disagree with your analysis of Sarkozy being more of an "Americanizer", his reforms (which I think would be good for the French economy) are mild, to say the least.

But yeah, politics is one hell of a circus.

Very much a circus. I'm hoping for Royale, although I'm afraid it'll end up with Sarkozy and Le Pen in the second round. Hopefully the left will realize that their best bet will be to rally behind Royale and hope the FN and UMP split the right wing vote.

To clarify I'm not that enamoured with Royale, but I dislike Sarkozy a lot more, and I should hope my opinion of M. Le Pen should be obvious.

Of course, my opinion doesn't matter so much because I'm not French, but I still think it's interesting.
it is an interesting song more than 20 years we are witnessing the cost of capitalism,

it is an interesting song more than 20 years we are witnessing the cost of capitalism,it does now, the same,every system did,
It is elitist,
it is sponsored,lobbyed, mediatised gouvernance,but surely not a democracy ,
Anyway if i vote,i will go to all temples and prey that i am not the big satan or the antichrist...
Has voted..
Wooosh!!!!!!!

Of course, many of us Anglophonic types would charge that the problems of the French economy and politics have a lot to do with too much regulation, too much government control, too much vacation time and too little openness.

Not to mention a populace that's ready to go on strike at the slightest provocation.

You're so damn awesome it hurts.

While I don't disagree with your analysis of Sarkozy being more of an "Americanizer", his reforms (which I think would be good for the French economy) are mild, to say the least.

But yeah, politics is one hell of a circus.
Andalucia.hmmm!
Sarkozy is really the favorite,it has the popular appeal(media+ karsher)
Royal is a women and want to put boot camps and other morally social rules up to date.
Royale is not a socialist by any means

Sarkozy is an opportunist,both have power and are intelligent...
They are the ying and yang, the grey doesn't exist but to feed the ying and the yang

Andalucia.hmmm!
Sarkozy is really the favorite,it has the popular appeal(media+ karsher)
Royal is a women and want to put boot camps and other morally social rules up to date.
Royale is not a socialist by any means

Sarkozy is an opportunist,both have power and are intelligent...
They are the ying and yang, the grey doesn't exist but to feed the ying and the yang

I think we thoroughly agree.

I'll drain the remainder of the fourth cup of coffee to that.

Of course, many of us Anglophonic types would charge that the problems of the French economy and politics have a lot to do with too much regulation, too much government control, too much vacation time and too little openness.

Not to mention a populace that's ready to go on strike at the slightest provocation.
Regulations? too much?
For who.?
And what about people who don't care about the law,
or better know so much about it(monney)that they can go public without condom?
And even without it,they will still get the best treatment?

I liken it to the idea of deciding that the front bumper of the car wasnt sturdy enough, and thus strapping Granny to it.

Well, this was simply a hypothesis of what is going on through the Op's mind. If ever there is a newsflash of a driver with his/her grandmother attached to the front bumper, we shall have found the Op.

emmmm....why would you build a civillian suburb to "keep an eye" on "hostile activity"? And why are they still being built despite a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt?



What part of Iraq did Kuwait get? What part of Germany did France take at the end of WW2?


Those civilians suburbs are volunteers who intentionally move into those settlements for the purpose of watching the Palestinians. Your whole argument revolves around the settlements...The settlements were built after Arab aggression. They are an effect, not a cause and no I do not fully support their existance. Though I can understand why they were built.

Kuwait got their Sovereignty back. France got their country and independence back.

Those civilians suburbs are volunteers who intentionally move into those settlements for the purpose of watching the Palestinians. .

I'm sorry, but could you provide some source for that claim? Its just that I thought I'd heard it all by now....

A few questions though, in the mean-time -

Why would anybody bother watching the Palestinians when the threat was from Egypt, Syria and Jordan?

Why would 'volunteers' use civillian housing to monitor a military threat?

Why are the IDF there, if these 'volunteers' are to do the monitoring?

What is the monitoring organisation called and who does it report to? the police or the military?


Kuwait got their Sovereignty back. France got their country and independence back.

So there was no part of Iraq with Kuwaiti 'volunteers' in civillian housing monitoring the Iraqis? There was no civillian French annexation of the Ruhr etc? Why not?