NationStates Jolt Archive

Obviously Mr Solana forgot that Hamas is the group that fundamentally denies the existenance of the state, and works to destroy it. I weep for the ignorance portrayed in his statement :(


link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1161811213704&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)
'Hamas doesn't want to destroy Israel'

Hamas wants to "liberate the Palestinians," not to destroy Israel, Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

In an interview following his talks in Tel Aviv with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Solana insisted that it was "not impossible" for Hamas to change and "recognize the existence of Israel." History had shown that people and nations "adapt to reality," he said. "I don't want to lose hope."

# Solana: Reopen crossings to Gaza

Pressed as to whether he was underestimating the fundamentalist religious imperative at the heart of the Hamas ideology, Solana said, "I cannot imagine that the religious imperative, the real religious imperative, can make anybody destroy another country... Therefore that is an abuse of religion...

"I don't think the essence of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. The essence of Hamas is the liberation of the Palestinians," he added. "The liberation of their people, not the destruction of Israel."

Solana, who said he saw himself as "a good friend of Israel," also said that he was concerned that, given the various demographic, security and other considerations, "some of the positions of some leaders of Israel may not be the best recipes to guarantee the security of Israel."

He said, for instance, "I never thought the construction of the security wall was a good idea."

When it was suggested to him that the security barrier had saved hundreds of lives, he said, "I think there were other ways to do it. In any case, the wall should have been constructed on the line of '67."

He said that sometimes Israel's emphasis on security, however important, provided "more insecurity than security," and cited procedures at the Rafah crossing in this context.

He said he disagreed, too, with the positions of incoming minister Avigdor Lieberman, with whom he met on Wednesday. The Israel Beiteinu leader's stances, he said without elaboration, "are very far from the positions of the classical leaders of Israel."

He added that it was important to remember that, as US President George W. Bush had stated, the goal of the peace process in general, and the road map in particular, was to end the occupation that began in 1967 by means of a two-state solution.
Turning to Iran, the EU foreign policy chief said the crisis over Teheran's nuclear program had not yet reached "the red zone," and that the international community was fulfilling its obligation to use diplomacy, and the UN Security Council if diplomacy failed, to deter Iran from attaining a nuclear weapons capability. "Any solution of that [diplomatic or UN] type is better than solutions which are more drastic."

He fully understood Israel's concerns over "some of the actions that Iran is taking" and over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's relentless efforts to delegitimize Israel. "This is the type of statement that should not be allowed to be said," he observed of the Iranian leader's calls to destroy Israel.

A nuclear Iran would be "a big threat. That's why the international community is doing the utmost [to ensure] that it not happen," he stressed.

Finally, although he said his experience of
President Bashar Assad was that the Syrian leader "has not delivered," he suggested it might be wise for Israel to "test the waters" on Syria's recent peace overtures.

"I don't think the prime minister of Israel has to do it," Solana said, but someone should. Quoting former US secretary of state James Baker, he added, "To talk to your enemy is not appeasement."

So Hamas doesn't want to destroy Israel! That means our middle Eastern problem is solved!!!! Pfft...Saying that is like saying fat kids don't like candy.
As for him saying something about going to the pre '67 lines, why is that even an issue? The Israelis will not and should not have to revert back to that. The won land in a war, thats justifiable, no?

British Umpires Make Pie

So this Solana dude, is he retarded, misinformed or just lying?

So this Solana dude, is he retarded, misinformed or just lying?

From what I hear, he ignores problems because he is one of those people that wants everyone to be happy and holding hand together. Which is sad, because he is a leader in the EU, and he had(has?) a part in Nato

And there are some rally radical fundies that think he is the Antichrist. Silly Fundies;)

And there are some rally radical fundies that think he is the Antichrist. Silly Fundies;)

They're so cute :D

They're so cute :D

But aren't they? :p Seriously though, you can google Solana and half the results have antichrist in them. Its sad that people are so ignorant.

But aren't they? :p Seriously though, you can google Solana and half the results have antichrist in them. Its sad that people are so ignorant.

I swear, half the world is insane, the other half is incredibly self deceptive.

Hey if someone was oppressing me, I’d probably try to destroy them. Actually I wouldn’t, but I couldn’t blame the other oppressed people for trying to. Actually I would, but I guess I’d understand where they’re coming from. Yeah, that’s it.

Obviously Mr Solana forgot that Hamas is the group that fundamentally denies the existenance of the state, and works to destroy it. I weep for the ignorance portrayed in his statement :(


link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1161811213704&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)

So Hamas doesn't want to destroy Israel! That means our middle Eastern problem is solved!!!! Pfft...Saying that is like saying fat kids don't like candy.
As for him saying something about going to the pre '67 lines, why is that even an issue? The Israelis will not and should not have to revert back to that. The won land in a war, thats justifiable, no?
No. Give them their land back. Sign the peace treaty, and Mr. Solana just might be right.

British Umpires Make Pie
What does British umpires making pies have to do with the price of tea in China? :p

The won land in a war, thats justifiable, no?

not really, no.

not really, no.

More like the peice of abondoned desert land won by the british, then given to the Jews.

More like the peice of abondoned desert land won by the british, then given to the Jews.

Which they promptly cultivated, and made into shockingly not worthless, even desirable land. The economic growth that the immigrants from Europe brought to the Palestine area attracted a sizable quantity of Arabs from neighboring regions, who also came and benefitted from the economic boom these reasonably well off immigrants had.

No. Give them their land back. Sign the peace treaty, and Mr. Solana just might be right.

In that case the US better give New Mexico, Texas, Arizonia, and California back to Mexico while we're at it. ;) Yeah and China has to surrender to Taiwan.

While we're at that the US has to become a British colony again.

South America has to disband all their governments and return to Spainish and Portugal control. The current Leaders of Britian will have to resign because they are decended from the Normans so we'll have to find some Saxons to replace them. And on and on and on...

Come back when you have a REAL excuse.

In that case the US better give New Mexico, Texas, Arizonia, and California back to Mexico while we're at it. ;) Yeah and China has to surrender to Taiwan.

While we're at that the US has to become a British colony again.

South America has to disband all their governments and return to Spainish and Portugal control. The current Leaders of Britian will have to resign because they are decended from the Normans so we'll have to find some Saxons to replace them. And on and on and on...

...iff the inhabitants in each of them want to do so.

...iff the inhabitants in each of them want to do so.There are people from Israel living on that land also. Do they not matter? It's always what the Southern Syrians want.

Goodbye Southwest United States as soon as the Mexican Immigrants want those states to Join Mexico the US is supposed to let them.

[
So Hamas doesn't want to destroy Israel! That means our middle Eastern problem is solved!!!! Pfft...Saying that is like saying fat kids don't like candy.
As for him saying something about going to the pre '67 lines, why is that even an issue? The Israelis will not and should not have to revert back to that. The won land in a war, thats justifiable, no?

So why was there a war fought to remove Iraq from Kuwait? And no, its no 'justifiable' in the legal sense, as it goes against the UN charter.

In that case the US better give New Mexico, Texas, Arizonia, and California back to Mexico while we're at it. ;) Yeah and China has to surrender to Taiwan.

While we're at that the US has to become a British colony again.

South America has to disband all their governments and return to Spainish and Portugal control. The current Leaders of Britian will have to resign because they are decended from the Normans so we'll have to find some Saxons to replace them. And on and on and on...

Come back when you have a REAL excuse.
Ummm there is a real excuse, but you can call it a real reason. :D

Or you can call it United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_338)

The other acquisitions that you listed were pre UN and pre League of Nations.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/288/65/IMG/NR028865.pdf?OpenElement

So Hamas doesn't want to destroy Israel! That means our middle Eastern problem is solved!!!! Pfft...Saying that is like saying fat kids don't like candy.
As for him saying something about going to the pre '67 lines, why is that even an issue? The Israelis will not and should not have to revert back to that. The won land in a war, thats justifiable, no?Aren't you leaving NS?

anyway, if you wat to be a missionary/peacemaker dude, I reccomend that you turf this'justifiable' nonsense. It happened. What we now get to worry about is what's realistic for the future. The mantra of 'going back to the 67' lines' is a pretty standard starting point for negotiations, which Israel more or less accepts.

So why was there a war fought to remove Iraq from Kuwait? And no, its no 'justifiable' in the legal sense, as it goes against the UN charter.
Exactly!! :)

From what I hear, he ignores problems because he is one of those people that wants everyone to be happy and holding hand together. Which is sad, because he is a leader in the EU, and he had(has?) a part in Nato

You hear this from where exactly? A link to some article would be nice. Leave out ones with pictures of him with Horns photo-shopped on his head please.

(and now I know why you never answered my question about the christian peace-keepers)


More like the peice of abondoned desert land won by the british, then given to the Jews.

It wasnt abandoned, and the British were administering it until independence could be granted, as it was deemed a "Class A" mandate by the UN.


Which they promptly cultivated, and made into shockingly not worthless, even desirable land. The economic growth that the immigrants from Europe brought to the Palestine area attracted a sizable quantity of Arabs from neighboring regions, who also came and benefitted from the economic boom these reasonably well off immigrants had..

Nonsense, made popular in the 80's by J Peters book "From time immemorial", a piece of crap long discredited.

That being said I'm sure that the settlers did well on the small sections of land they had, but the overwhelming majority of produce came from Arab tilled Arab owned land.

...

Weren't you to get back to me with some sources about the percentage/area of land owned in 1945/46 by settlers? You disputed my figure of (roughly) 7% but would not profer an alternative...

The mantra of 'going back to the 67' lines' is a pretty standard starting point for negotiations, which Israel more or less accepts.
This is soooo simple. Perhaps you and I should go over there and we will have this wrapped up and a signed deal in about a week? :)

This is soooo simple. Perhaps you and I should go over there and we will have this wrapped up and a signed deal in about a week? :)
Having seen some of your posts, I'd give it a month. But ok.

*Anything about the UN*
Real reason, not UN rullings that no one would have obeyed to.

Do you think Syria would have just been fine with Israel if they gave the land back? Doubt it.
Do you think the Clerics would say Israel is okay if Israel had gave the land back? Doubt it.

Besides Syria and the other countries deserved NOTHING because of what they did. They invaded another nation in an attempt to take over and destroy it, but when the country counterattacks and ends up pushing them miles behind their OWN lines, they complain about Invasion? I think it's Irony.

The other acquisitions that you listed were pre UN and pre League of Nations.
The Europeans founded colonies before the UN was founded yet the UN still was in charge of having colonies declared Independent.

But according to you since there wasn't a UN it was okay right?

I guess Murder is okay if there aren't any officers around either right?


Weren't you to get back to me with some sources about the percentage/area of land owned in 1945/46 by settlers? You disputed my figure of (roughly) 7% but would not profer an alternative... Yeah I need to find that.

There are people from Israel living on that land also. Do they not matter? It's always what the Southern Syrians want.

Goodbye Southwest United States as soon as the Mexican Immigrants want those states to Join Mexico the US is supposed to let them.

it's purely a matter of self-determination

Real reason, not UN rullings that no one would have obeyed to.

Do you think Syria would have just been fine with Israel if they gave the land back? Doubt it.
Do you think the Clerics would say Israel is okay if Israel had gave the land back? Doubt it.

Besides Syria and the other countries deserved NOTHING because of what they did. They invaded another nation in an attempt to take over and destroy it, but when the country counterattacks and ends up pushing them miles behind their OWN lines, they complain about Invasion? I think it's Irony.
It is not a matter of what you think what they deserve, it is a matter of doing what is right to establish a peaceful co-existence in the Middle East. Part of the process would be giving the land back, and giving the Palestinians the tools to improve their economy and the plight of the people.

It would appear that the current method has only caused a deterioration of the situation. It is time to fix the problem.

The Europeans founded colonies before the UN was founded yet the UN still was in charge of having colonies declared Independent.
The UN declared the colonies independent or the people declared their independence? Examples?

But according to you since there wasn't a UN it was okay right?
I didn't comment on anything like that.

I guess Murder is okay if there aren't any officers around either right?
Don't know where you are coming from on this point.

does anyone remember Green Israel? he was fun.

does anyone remember Green Israel? he was fun.He/she is still around. Also, I've found Green israel quite lucid and reasonable, if one cuts some slack for his/her English, which obviously is a challenge.

Obviously Mr Solana forgot that Hamas is the group that fundamentally denies the existenance of the state, and works to destroy it. I weep for the ignorance portrayed in his statement :(

You're reading it wrong. Ignore the headline and read his quotes. He's talking about possible change.In an interview following his talks in Tel Aviv with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Solana insisted that it was "not impossible" for Hamas to change and "recognize the existence of Israel." History had shown that people and nations "adapt to reality," he said. "I don't want to lose hope."


As for him saying something about going to the pre '67 lines, why is that even an issue? The Israelis will not and should not have to revert back to that. The won land in a war, thats justifiable, no?
No, it's not justifiable. They should give back the land, as demanded in various UN resolution and by, well, the international community.

At any rate, you misread him again. He's talking about how the wall does not follow the '67 line, but rather cuts in on what should be palestinian land. Had the wall followed the '67 line it would have been less of a problem.

Ummm there is a real excuse, but you can call it a real reason. :D

Or you can call it United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_338)

Or simply put: International law :)

Real reason, not UN rullings that no one would have obeyed to..

Sanctions

Do you think Syria would have just been fine with Israel if they gave the land back? Doubt it.
Do you think the Clerics would say Israel is okay if Israel had gave the land back? Doubt it.
..

But whether they approve or disapprove is nothing to do with the fact that the land should be given back. This is for the people living there, not some Government in Damascus or Tehran.


Besides Syria and the other countries deserved NOTHING because of what they did. They invaded another nation in an attempt to take over and destroy it, but when the country counterattacks and ends up pushing them miles behind their OWN lines, they complain about Invasion? I think it's Irony.
..

France did not colonise the Ruhr after WWII. Kuwait did not absorb a few border provinces of Iraq,


Yeah I need to find that....

Yes, you do.

I find it funny how people try to label the Palestinians as horrible terrorists, but justify Israeli oppression by saying they won a war. Germany won a war, should the French not have fought back.

The Palestinians are fighting a guerrilla war. If they win, would they be justified in oppressing Jews after their victory? Most people who support the Israel genocide of the Palestinians, or support the Plaestinian terror campaign completely, generally have some bias.

Both of the groups have some hard core fundamentalist nut jobs, who wont be satisfied until the other group are dead. The more moderate amongst the groups have to try to find a solution that doesn't involve more bloodshed.

The problem is while the Israelis offer the Palestinians pretty much nothing, the moderate Palestinians seem to be able to offer nothing, while fundamentalist nut jobs get more power as they seem to be the only solution for the Palestinians. I offer the historical example of Cambodia, around the Vietnam War, to show what happens when a whole countries gets pushed into fundamentalism, by stupid Western actions.

I find it funny how people try to label the Palestinians as horrible terrorists, but justify Israeli oppression by saying they won a war. Germany won a war, should the French not have fought back.

The Palestinians are fighting a guerrilla war. If they win, would they be justified in oppressing Jews after their victory? Most people who support the Israel genocide of the Palestinians, or support the Plaestinian terror campaign completely, generally have some bias.

Both of the groups have some hard core fundamentalist nut jobs, who wont be satisfied until the other group are dead. The more moderate amongst the groups have to try to find a solution that doesn't involve more bloodshed.

The problem is while the Israelis offer the Palestinians pretty much nothing, the moderate Palestinians seem to be able to offer nothing, while fundamentalist nut jobs get more power as they seem to be the only solution for the Palestinians. I offer the historical example of Cambodia, around the Vietnam War, to show what happens when a whole countries gets pushed into fundamentalism, by stupid Western actions.

Rather a good point re Cambodia. Also - Iran.