At what point will air travel become unaffordable

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.

You shouldn't buy that. Because they were offerred 100% of the West
Bank, all of Gaza, and a fairly large chunk of what is considered
Israel today.

And they turned it down.

Sorry if your library doesn't have any history books.

Go look at the map of Israel when created in 1948. The rest of the
territory was offerred to Palestine as their own state. They said "no".

Here's a link to the map. Yellow was the Islamic state for the
Palestinians that they turned down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

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

Try reading a book and thinking critically rather than just reacting
with anti-Semitic hatred.

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.

Try Resolution 181. That's what they were offered and that's what they
turned down.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International
Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan,
shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation
of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in
any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab
State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as
described in Parts II and III below."

Big long description follows which very clearly defines the West Bank
as being part of the Arab state.

Another map. Red being the Arab state controlling virtually all of the
West Bank.

http://www.mideastweb.org/un_palesti..._sept_1947.htm

http://www.mideastweb.org/181.htm

"The Arab League and Palestinian institutions rejected the partition
plan, and formed volunteer armies that infiltrated into Palestine
beginning in December of 1947."

Another map from the UN site:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf0...3!OpenDocument

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

Rubbish. "They" are a heterogenous group.

Well, "they" declared war on the new state of Israel and then attacked.

Tchiowa wrote:
You shouldn't buy that. Because they were offerred 100% of the West
Bank, all of Gaza, and a fairly large chunk of what is considered
Israel today.

Unless you have seen the *ACTUAL* official documents/offers faxed to the
palestinians, you cannot know for sure whether this was true or not.
What you hear on the media is what POLITICIANS want you to hear. If
USA/ISRAEL want to make the Palestinians look bad, they make an offer
that palestinains will refuse and go to the media and accuse the
palestinians of not negotiating in good faith.

Consider this: Your rich uncle offers you $1 million dollars but with a
precondition that you have your penis cut off. You refuse. Your rich
uncle then goes to the media and announces you've refused an offer for a
million dollars without mention of the precondition.


The problem is that both sides always want to keep some leverage against
the other. Israel has many items it can leverage away (invaded
territory, the wall that goes across the 1967 borders, its military
invasions, prisoners etc).


The palestinians' only real leverage are those self exploding citizens.
They have no money, no territory to swap. They may have some water
though, but I doubt they would ever be willing to part with the land
that has the water. The recognition of Israel isn't really leverage, it
is just a bit of icinmg on the cake designed mostly for public
consumption. In practice, they've already recogized Irasel by
negotiating with it.


So, for the palestinians, they's give up their only leverage only once
they are happy Israel will never again be a threath (bombs, invasion ,
economic/travel sanctions etc).



Israel is a more mature country, and funded/controlled by a single
sponsor. Palestine gets its motivation/money/arms from multiple sources,
so it is much harder to control by diplomatic means.

Any deal between the two has to take into consideration that Palestinian
citizens will continue to explode themselves in Israel and that such
explosions should not stop any progress. Israel will have to learn to
bite its tongue many many times and not react to such incidents. And
over time, those incidents will go away. (and this is where the
sponsor's power can ensure Israel refrain from retaliating whenever some
Palestinian individual explodes in Israel).

Anytime Israel does something "bad" and the USA does not widthdaw
subsidies and/or military help/hardware, it is an implicit acceptance by
the USA of Israel's action(s), despite any publica statement that may be
made without any follow up action.

This isn't a question of finding fault. It is a question of finding a
way out of this infinite loop. Tit for tat will NEVER solve a dispute,
it will only ensure it continues. One of the two sides has to stop its
instinctive retaliation whenever it is struck by the other.

The concept of the roadmap was a sound one. It is just a shame that the
USA didn't put more money where its mouth was to ensure it continued
despite wherever the Palestinians did.

Palestinians cannot be trusted(yet). And they cannot trust Israel/USA.
get Israel/USA to do 100% of their obligation in the roadmap and not
retaliate for the self-exploding civilians and in time, the middle east
will come to see that Israel is not going to attack them and may finally
realise that there is no point in continuing to fund self exploding civilians.

In the end, Israel has to gain the confidence of middle eastern
countries before the later will start telling Palestinians that there is
no longer a need to strap on some C4 and make fireworks near an Israeli restaurant.

"Tchiowa" wrote:


Try reading a book and thinking critically rather than just reacting
with anti-Semitic hatred.

That says it all. I have never before been accused of antisemitism or,
indeed, being motivated in anything by any type of hatred. The fact
that you try to bolster an argument with me by such methods betrays an
inability to deal with issues on their own merits.

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

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:


Try reading a book and thinking critically rather than just reacting
with anti-Semitic hatred.

That says it all. I have never before been accused of antisemitism or,
indeed, being motivated in anything by any type of hatred. The fact
that you try to bolster an argument with me by such methods betrays an
inability to deal with issues on their own merits.

It's hardly a surprise - you don't support Israel 101% ?? You must, by
definition, be an anti-semite, or else a self-hating Jew.

B;

Perhaps you faggot didn't notice it but you are crosspsoting this filth on
arabs to travel groups. This babble of yours have nothing to do with air
travelling nor travelling in Europe.



"Tchiowa" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...


And they turned it down.

Sorry if your library doesn't have any history books.

Go look at the map of Israel when created in 1948. The rest of the
territory was offerred to Palestine as their own state. They said "no".

Here's a link to the map. Yellow was the Islamic state for the
Palestinians that they turned down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

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

Try reading a book and thinking critically rather than just reacting
with anti-Semitic hatred.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:54:14 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

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.

When I happen to mention that the USA has not explicitly said
they will do something I get excoriated for not realizing they
mean it implicitly, and will do it should the occasion arise.


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

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:10:36 +0100, 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, 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.

Neither Fatah nor Hamas is, strictly speaking, the PA and there
should be no requirement that Israel address them first, save
through their representation in the PA.

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

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:14:59 -0400, nobody
wrote:

Tchiowa wrote:
You shouldn't buy that. Because they were offerred 100% of the West
Bank, all of Gaza, and a fairly large chunk of what is considered
Israel today.

Unless you have seen the *ACTUAL* official documents/offers faxed to the
palestinians, you cannot know for sure whether this was true or not.
What you hear on the media is what POLITICIANS want you to hear. If
USA/ISRAEL want to make the Palestinians look bad, they make an offer
that palestinains will refuse and go to the media and accuse the
palestinians of not negotiating in good faith.

The offer was from the United Nations' plan of partition in 1947
and is on record and well-known, the offer having been made
before the state of Israel existed.


Consider this: Your rich uncle offers you $1 million dollars but with a
precondition that you have your penis cut off. You refuse. Your rich
uncle then goes to the media and announces you've refused an offer for a
million dollars without mention of the precondition.


The problem is that both sides always want to keep some leverage against
the other. Israel has many items it can leverage away (invaded
territory, the wall that goes across the 1967 borders, its military
invasions, prisoners etc).

I repeat: there was no Israel when the UN offered the plan of
partition, so your comments are irrelevant. And to take your
analogy a step further, the Palestinians sort of emasculated
themselves when they turned the offer down.


The palestinians' only real leverage are those self exploding citizens.
They have no money, no territory to swap.

They could have had the land -- quitre a bit of it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Palestine.png

They may have some water
though, but I doubt they would ever be willing to part with the land
that has the water. The recognition of Israel isn't really leverage, it
is just a bit of icinmg on the cake designed mostly for public
consumption. In practice, they've already recogized Irasel by
negotiating with it.

Wee the map tehy were offered and comment on it, not idle
speculation.

[...]

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

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:10:36 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:



Try truth.

Neither Fatah nor Hamas is, strictly speaking, the PA and there
should be no requirement that Israel address them first, save
through their representation in the PA.

Both Hamas and Fatah have members in the PA and Hamas
have the majority and effectively control it.

Keith