中新社北京2月22日电综合消息：美国驻以色列大使迈克·赫卡比所谓"以色列可拿下整个中东"的言论在 周末引发多方谴责，相关国家称其言论"危险且具有煽动性"。 据路透社报道，赫卡比在20日播出的一档节目中就以色列的生存权及犹太人在中东的历史渊源问题作出 回应称："若他们拿下整个中东，那也没问题。" 阿联酋通讯社称，多个国家及国际组织22日发表联合声明，对赫卡比的言论表示强烈谴责和深切关注。 该声明由阿联酋、埃及、约旦、印度尼西亚、巴基斯坦、土耳其、沙特阿拉伯、卡塔尔、科威特、阿 曼、巴林、黎巴嫩、叙利亚和巴勒斯坦，以及伊斯兰合作组织、阿拉伯国家联盟和海湾阿拉伯国家合作 委员会共同发表。 声明称，赫卡比的言论危险且具有煽动性，公然违反国际法原则和《联合国宪章》，对地区安全与稳定 构成严重威胁。 声明指出，以色列对被占领的巴勒斯坦领土或任何其他被占领的阿拉伯国家土地没有任何主权。坚决反 对以色列任何吞并约旦河西岸或将其与加沙地带分离的企图，强烈反对在被占领的巴勒斯坦领土上扩大 定居点活动，坚决反对任何威胁阿拉伯国家主权的行为。 伊朗伊斯兰共和国通讯社称，伊朗外交部发言人巴加埃22日表示，伊朗谴责这种"极端主义意识形态 ...

来源：新华网 伊拉克外交部21日晚发表声明，强烈谴责赫卡比的言论，认为有关表态严重违反国际法原则和《联合国 宪章》，公然侵犯各国主权、独立和领土完整，给地区安全与稳定带来负面影响。 赫卡比此前接受美国福克斯新闻频道前主持人塔克·卡尔森采访时说，"若他们（以色列）拿下整个中 东，那也没问题"，但他随后又"找补"说，以色列"没要求拿走全部……这只是某种夸张说法"。 声明说，赫卡比有关言论危险且具有煽动性，公然违反国际法原则和《联合国宪章》，对地区安全与稳 定构成严重威胁。 声明强调，各方坚决反对任何企图为侵占他国土地行为"合法化"的言论。以色列对被占巴勒斯坦领土及 其他被占阿拉伯国家土地不拥有任何主权，坚决反对任何吞并约旦河西岸或将其与加沙地带分割的企 图，强烈反对在被占巴勒斯坦领土扩大定居点活动，坚决反对任何威胁阿拉伯国家主权的行为。 伊朗外交部发言人巴加埃当天也表示，赫卡比的言论证明了美国积极参与"以色列的扩张侵略战争及其 对巴勒斯坦人的殖民种族灭绝"，伊朗方面与伊斯兰合作组织一道，谴责这种"极端主义意识形态言 论"。 巴勒斯坦外交部21日晚发表声明谴责赫卡比相关言论，称其具有挑衅性质、是不可接受的，应受到国 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent interest of the Trump administration in acquiring Greenland is framed within the context of U.S. Arctic strategy, North Atlantic security, and competition for critical resources, highlighting a structural strategic demand in the current geopolitical environment [3][4]. Group 1: Strategic Importance of Greenland - Greenland's geographical position is crucial for U.S. military and security interests, particularly its location over the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, which has historically been a key defense line against Soviet naval forces during the Cold War [4][6]. - The GIUK gap has regained importance due to the resurgence of great power competition and increased military activities in the Arctic, making Greenland's strategic position more significant [4][6]. Group 2: Military Presence and Historical Context - The U.S. has a long-standing military presence in Greenland, dating back to World War II, and has maintained military operations there under a defense agreement with Denmark since 1951 [6]. - The U.S. military's reliance on Greenland includes critical facilities like the Thule Air Base, which plays a vital role in missile warning and defense systems [6]. Group 3: Resource Competition - Greenland is believed to possess significant mineral resources, particularly rare earth elements, with estimates of around 1.5 million tons, making it a target for U.S. interests amid growing concerns over supply chain vulnerabilities [7]. - The U.S. government's focus on securing rare earth resources reflects a shift in perspective, viewing these materials as a national security issue rather than merely an economic one [7]. Group 4: Historical Precedents for Territorial Acquisition - The U.S. has a historical precedent for acquiring territory through purchase, such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the acquisition of Alaska in 1867, which were significant for U.S. expansion [8][9]. - The notion of purchasing territory has been part of U.S. expansionist strategy, although contemporary international law and principles of self-determination complicate such actions today [9][11]. Group 5: International Law and Self-Determination - The issue of Greenland's status is not merely a bilateral matter between the U.S. and Denmark but involves historical contexts, self-determination rights, and international law principles [11]. - Recent polls indicate that a majority of Greenlanders prefer independence from Denmark, with a significant opposition to joining the U.S., highlighting the complexities of any potential territorial transaction [11].

Core Viewpoint - President Trump has reiterated the U.S. intention to acquire Greenland, emphasizing the need for ownership rather than mere military presence, which has sparked discontent among NATO allies and led to discussions among European nations about military deployment in Greenland [2][5][7]. Group 1: U.S. Position on Greenland - Trump stated that the U.S. must "own" Greenland for national security reasons, dismissing the idea of merely leasing or having military bases there [2][8]. - He expressed skepticism about NATO's support for the U.S. in critical times, claiming that the alliance is more dependent on the U.S. than vice versa [2][7]. - Trump's comments have been characterized as a significant escalation in U.S. foreign policy regarding Greenland, which he views as a strategic asset [8][9]. Group 2: European Response - European nations, led by the UK and Germany, are discussing the deployment of NATO forces to Greenland in response to Trump's aggressive stance [4][5]. - Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen indicated that the situation regarding Greenland is at a "decisive moment," suggesting potential ramifications for NATO if the U.S. pursues aggressive actions [2][6]. - A joint statement from several European countries emphasized that Greenland belongs to its people and that only Denmark and Greenland can decide their own affairs [7]. Group 3: Strategic Importance of Greenland - Greenland is strategically located and rich in key minerals and fossil fuels, making it a focal point for global powers amid climate change, which is making these resources more accessible [9]. - The island's potential for rare earth resources has seen a surge in interest, particularly from U.S. leadership, which could impact market dynamics for companies involved in these sectors [9]. Group 4: Potential U.S. Strategies for Acquisition - Analysts suggest four potential methods the U.S. might consider to acquire Greenland: purchasing it, inciting independence, binding treaties, or military action [11][12][16][17]. - The idea of purchasing Greenland has faced strong opposition from both the Danish government and the local population, raising legal and ethical concerns [12][15]. - Military action, while considered an option, could lead to severe political repercussions and jeopardize NATO's unity, as highlighted by the Danish Prime Minister [17].

Core Viewpoint - The President of Cuba, Diaz-Canel, stated that there is currently "no dialogue" between Cuba and the U.S. government, only technical contacts in the area of immigration [1] Group 1 - Cuba is open to serious and responsible dialogue with all U.S. administrations, including the current one [1] - Any dialogue must be based on principles of sovereign equality, mutual respect, international law, non-interference in internal affairs, and full respect for Cuba's independence [1]

Group 1 - Venezuela's Foreign Ministry reaffirmed its historical stance on relations with Cuba, emphasizing alignment with the principles of the UN Charter and international law [1] - The relationship between Venezuela and the Caribbean region, including Cuba, is based on brotherhood, solidarity, mutual assistance, and win-win cooperation [1] - Venezuela stressed that international relations should adhere to principles of international law, non-interference, equality of state sovereignty, and the right to self-determination of peoples [1] Group 2 - Venezuela highlighted that political and diplomatic dialogue is the only path to peacefully resolve disputes [1]

Core Viewpoint - The future of Greenland is a matter solely for Denmark and Greenland, and the U.S. should respect international law and territorial sovereignty [1] Group 1: International Relations - German Vice Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil emphasized that the decision regarding Greenland's future is entirely up to Denmark and Greenland [1] - Klingbeil stated that principles of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity under international law apply to all countries, including the U.S. [1] - As NATO allies, countries should work together to enhance security in the Arctic region rather than create divisions [1] Group 2: Upcoming Events - The G7 finance ministers' meeting scheduled for the 12th will focus on key mineral-related topics [1] - Klingbeil indicated that the issue of the U.S. desire to "acquire" Greenland may be discussed during the meeting [1] Group 3: U.S. Position - Since taking office in 2025, U.S. President Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland and has suggested the possibility of using force [1] - Trump mentioned in a recent interview that Venezuela might not be the last country the U.S. intervenes in, asserting the necessity of Greenland for the U.S. [1] - European countries, including Denmark, have strongly opposed U.S. military actions against NATO allies, with Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen warning that such actions would lead to severe consequences [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that the recent U.S. military action against Venezuela is a violation of the country's sovereignty and represents direct resource plundering, setting a dangerous precedent for international relations [1]. Group 1: U.S. Military Action - The motivations behind the U.S. strike are largely unrelated to democracy, human rights, or drug control, with President Trump openly admitting the intention to take over Venezuela's oil reserves [1]. - This action is characterized as direct resource plundering, reminiscent of colonial practices, utilizing military force to seize resources that cannot be obtained through economic pressure or political manipulation [1]. - The military action was conducted without authorization from the United Nations Security Council or approval from the U.S. Congress, fundamentally violating principles of international law [1]. Group 2: Long-term Implications - The U.S. infringement on Venezuela's sovereignty is seen as the culmination of a long-term regime change strategy, where imperialist forces resort to overt violence when indirect methods fail [1]. - The threats posed to Colombia, Mexico, and other nations indicate a bullying strategy by the U.S. against any country perceived as an obstacle to its unilateral resource acquisition and market access [1]. Group 3: Call for International Response - The article emphasizes the need for a substantial collective response from the international community, moving beyond mere verbal support to establishing integrated defense arrangements and alternative financial and trade systems to resist unilateral coercion [2]. - Peace-loving nations must form unbreakable alliances to counteract such rampant aggression, or they risk being forced to fight alone [2].

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that the recent U.S. military action against Venezuela is a violation of the country's sovereignty and represents direct resource plundering, setting a dangerous precedent [1]. Group 1: U.S. Military Action - The motivations behind the U.S. strike are not related to democracy, human rights, or drug control, as stated by President Trump, who openly admitted the intention to take over Venezuela's oil reserves [1]. - This action is characterized as direct resource plundering, akin to colonial practices, using military force to seize resources that cannot be obtained through economic pressure or political manipulation [1]. - The military action was conducted without authorization from the United Nations Security Council or approval from the U.S. Congress, fundamentally violating principles of international law [1]. Group 2: Long-term Implications - The U.S. infringement on Venezuela's sovereignty is seen as the culmination of a long-term regime change strategy, where imperialist forces resort to open violence when indirect methods fail [1]. - The threats to Colombia, Mexico, and other nations indicate a bullying strategy by the U.S. against any country perceived as an obstacle to its unilateral resource acquisition and market access [1]. Group 3: Call for International Response - The article emphasizes the need for a substantial collective response from the international community, moving beyond mere verbal support to establishing integrated defense arrangements and alternative financial and trade systems [2]. - Peace-loving nations must form unbreakable alliances to counteract such rampant aggression, or they will be forced to fight alone [2].

Core Viewpoint - The political crisis surrounding Venezuelan President Maduro, who was forcibly taken by the U.S. and appeared in a New York court, has drawn global attention as he denies all charges against him and asserts his innocence [1][3][31]. Group 1: Court Proceedings - On January 5, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, appeared in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Maduro faced multiple serious charges including "drug terrorism conspiracy" and "cocaine trafficking conspiracy," all of which he denied [3][33]. - Maduro claimed he was "kidnapped" and emphasized that he remains the President of Venezuela, while his lawyer questioned the legality of the U.S. military's actions [7][36]. - Flores also pleaded not guilty to all charges, and her lawyer indicated she required medical treatment due to injuries sustained during the U.S. military operation [7][36]. Group 2: Political Developments - On the same day, Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as the acting President of Venezuela following Maduro's detention [17][49]. - The Venezuelan government characterized the U.S. military actions as a form of military aggression, violating the United Nations Charter and posing a threat to regional and international peace [25][55]. Group 3: International Reactions - The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on January 5, where multiple countries condemned the U.S. actions against Venezuela [25][57]. - Venezuela's UN representative, Samuel Moncada, stated that the U.S. actions violated international law and called for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife [28][58]. - Moncada also highlighted that the Venezuelan government maintains constitutional order and effective control over its territory, asserting that the U.S. actions are driven by geopolitical motives [30][60].