At what point will air travel become unaffordable

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:


Padraig Breathnach wrote:

How about the West Bank?

What about it? The US has opposed the construction. So the claim of
"unqualified support for Israel, no matter what it does" kind of fails,
doesn't it?

********. The US position on settlement was in the line of "erm,
please, think again about this"; "well, okay, we'll say no more";
"they're there now, and we can't remove them".

Don't misrepresent the truth.

Part of the "Roadmap" presented by Bush was to stop building
settlements.

Clinton opposed the construction. So did Bush 41.

Have they demanded that they be demolished? No. But that doesn't alter
the fact that they opposed it.

"Tchiowa" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

How about the West Bank?

What about it? The US has opposed the construction. So the claim of
"unqualified support for Israel, no matter what it does" kind of fails,
doesn't it?

********. The US position on settlement was in the line of "erm,
please, think again about this"; "well, okay, we'll say no more";
"they're there now, and we can't remove them".

Don't misrepresent the truth.

Part of the "Roadmap" presented by Bush was to stop building
settlements.

Clinton opposed the construction. So did Bush 41.

Have they demanded that they be demolished? No. But that doesn't alter
the fact that they opposed it.

The "opposition" was token. You know that.

I suppose you also expect me to believe the bit about Palestinians
being offered 95% of the West Bank. I don't buy that either.

Try truthfulness. It might be an interesting place to go.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

"Tchiowa" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

How about the West Bank?

What about it? The US has opposed the construction. So the claim of
"unqualified support for Israel, no matter what it does" kind of fails,
doesn't it?

********. The US position on settlement was in the line of "erm,
please, think again about this"; "well, okay, we'll say no more";
"they're there now, and we can't remove them".

Don't misrepresent the truth.

Part of the "Roadmap" presented by Bush was to stop building
settlements.

Clinton opposed the construction. So did Bush 41.

Have they demanded that they be demolished? No. But that doesn't alter
the fact that they opposed it.

The "opposition" was token. You know that.

I suppose you also expect me to believe the bit about Palestinians
being offered 95% of the West Bank. I don't buy that either.


The PA offered no counter offfer... that is a fact... they wanted
homicide bombers and no peace.

jay
Mon Sep 18, 2006



Try truthfulness. It might be an interesting place to go.

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

I suppose you also expect me to believe the bit about Palestinians
being offered 95% of the West Bank. I don't buy that either.

The PA offered no counter offfer...

Counter to what? They were not offered 95%. Lots of bits were deducted
(especially West Jerusalem) before the computation of the spurious
95%. The minimal Palestinian remand was the implementation of UN
Resolution 242.

that is a fact... they wanted
homicide bombers and no peace.

Rubbish. "They" are a heterogenous group.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:10:05 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

I suppose you also expect me to believe the bit about Palestinians
being offered 95% of the West Bank. I don't buy that either.

The PA offered no counter offfer...

Counter to what? They were not offered 95%. Lots of bits were deducted
(especially West Jerusalem) before the computation of the spurious
95%. The minimal Palestinian remand was the implementation of UN
Resolution 242.

that is a fact... they wanted
homicide bombers and no peace.

Rubbish. "They" are a heterogenous group.

If by "they", the PA is meant, then one can at least speak to
their apparent policies, no matter how heterogenous their
individual memebers may be. One presumes, up to a point, at
least, that a memeber of an organization endorses that
organization's views.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:10:05 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

I suppose you also expect me to believe the bit about Palestinians
being offered 95% of the West Bank. I don't buy that either.

The PA offered no counter offfer...

Counter to what? They were not offered 95%. Lots of bits were deducted
(especially West Jerusalem) before the computation of the spurious
95%. The minimal Palestinian remand was the implementation of UN
Resolution 242.

that is a fact... they wanted
homicide bombers and no peace.

Rubbish. "They" are a heterogenous group.

If by "they", the PA is meant, then one can at least speak to
their apparent policies, no matter how heterogenous their
individual memebers may be. One presumes, up to a point, at
least, that a memeber of an organization endorses that
organization's views.

The PA does not, in anything I have ever seen, explicitly take a
position of wanting homicide bombers and no peace.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

I suppose you also expect me to believe the bit about Palestinians
being offered 95% of the West Bank. I don't buy that either.

The PA offered no counter offfer...

Counter to what? They were not offered 95%. Lots of bits were deducted
(especially West Jerusalem) before the computation of the spurious
95%.

Did you read the part of 242 about recognition of Israel ?

One wonders if you would be trotting out 242 if the "Yom Kippur" war
had turned out differently... sadly like too many Europeans I tend to
doubt it.

The PA walked AWAY from the negotiating table... they had no interest
in negotiations... which is also reflected in their current elected
government's stated position.

jay

Sep 18, 2006




The minimal Palestinian remand was the implementation of UN
Resolution 242.

that is a fact... they wanted
homicide bombers and no peace.

Rubbish. "They" are a heterogenous group.

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

I suppose you also expect me to believe the bit about Palestinians
being offered 95% of the West Bank. I don't buy that either.

The PA offered no counter offfer...

Counter to what? They were not offered 95%. Lots of bits were deducted
(especially West Jerusalem) before the computation of the spurious
95%.

Did you read the part of 242 about recognition of Israel ?

Yes. I note you avoided my question, and the issue of Breach of
international law.

One wonders if you would be trotting out 242 if the "Yom Kippur" war
had turned out differently...

Engage brain before expressing opinions. There would be no 242.

sadly like too many Europeans I tend to
doubt it.

You really are a ****ing idiot. In fact, I was pleased that Israel
survived that war.

The PA walked AWAY from the negotiating table...

They walked away from a table where there were no negotiations.

they had no interest
in negotiations... which is also reflected in their current elected
government's stated position.

Their current government is the result of Israel not being prepared to
deal honestly and honourably with Fatah, and actually promoting Hamas
for a while.

Try truth.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Padraig Breathnach wrote:


The PA does not, in anything I have ever seen, explicitly take a
position of wanting homicide bombers and no peace.


How often do they speak out against it?

Interesting about all of the complaints about the Pope's speech.
As expected, quite a few muslims responded with violence, to protest a
small section about muslims being violent...... hundreds of years ago.

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

Go Fig wrote:

In article , Padraig
Breathnach wrote:

I suppose you also expect me to believe the bit about Palestinians
being offered 95% of the West Bank. I don't buy that either.

The PA offered no counter offfer...

Counter to what? They were not offered 95%. Lots of bits were deducted
(especially West Jerusalem) before the computation of the spurious
95%.

Did you read the part of 242 about recognition of Israel ?

Yes. I note you avoided my question,


Because it is without foundation, 242 does NOT define any borders.

Consistent with that, is the fact all future joint accords/treaties
have not yet defined the final borders, which the UN has always
maintained that the borders will be defined by the parties.


and the issue of Breach of
international law.

You should read the UNSC Resolution first.


One wonders if you would be trotting out 242 if the "Yom Kippur" war
had turned out differently...

Engage brain before expressing opinions. There would be no 242.

.... read the 2nd sentence of the resolution.


sadly like too many Europeans I tend to
doubt it.

You really are a ****ing idiot. In fact, I was pleased that Israel
survived that war.

The fact that you need to say it ("in fact") argues my point about too
many Europeans... thank you.


The PA walked AWAY from the negotiating table...

They walked away from a table where there were no negotiations.

Dennis Ross, the principle mediator, says your wrong.

they had no interest
in negotiations... which is also reflected in their current elected
government's stated position.

Their current government is the result of Israel not being prepared to
deal honestly and honourably with Fatah,

The same Fatah, that the EU finally stopped funding cause the charges
of 'EU financing suicide bombers' were getting to close to home when
they could not audit the books ... ok... we did learn Arafat's wife was
getting $100k/month to live in Paris.

jay
Mon Sep 18, 2006





and actually promoting Hamas
for a while.

Try truth.