Viewpoint wrote:bill cobbett wrote:Viewpoint wrote:bill cobbett wrote:Viewpoint wrote:bill cobbett wrote:Viewpoint wrote:
Why do you hate the word state?
Hi VP
I don't like the idea of a state within a state. A little open to misinterpretation by the mischievous trouble-makers, wouldn't you agree?
Are you uncomfortable with my preference .... "Zone" ?
It is, after all, the one used in the UN Resolutions that refer to bi-ZONAL
Shouldn't we both stick to the agreement - bi-ZONAL?
If you refer back to the declaration by Tay-Brook Zerihoun last September to which the 2 leaders placed their names, it state quite clearly 2 founding states under a BB federal structure.
Shouldnt we stick to this principle and not continually try to deviate?
The talks are bound by the UN parameters. The UN uses the phrase bi-zonal, two ZONES!
Two zones under a single Federation so Zones is expected by the UN, Two Zones it must be and two Zones it will be.
You see VP ... state can so easily become State don't you think? Oh of course, you knew this. What was I thinking?
Zones on the other hand will always be Zones. Mind you there's a lot tone said for titles such as Areas or perhaps Districts? Canton is a nice word I think sometimes but no, The Rest of the World expects Zones and who are we to argue?
Going by the previous UN plans states have always been put forward and was reconfirmed by Tay Brooke at the outset of these talks, anything less will be rejected by the TCs.
To this let me say that very few would care about what is or isn't acceptable to the Majority Illegal Settlers in any "vote" in the Occupied Zone.
It is also worth bearing in mind that, when in a negotiation, it is the final wording that is important. The final agreement is the only thing that matters. The path to that settlement, the fine speeches, the press reports, the stories in the media of progress or otherwise are not terribly relevent and without the wording in a final agreement nothing that transpired or was revealed before means anything.
So it's zones, and if some partitionists see the danger of this small, uncapitalised word as destroying their wet-dreams of the past some fifty years.... All that remains to be said is ... Tough!
You conveniently forget that we represent 50% of the say in any new agreement and without our backing you have no deal...so you should review your attitude as we to not only the GCs have to be persuaded to back a new plan and with the omission of 2 states you will not get the TC backing without which you are back to sqaure one. You belittle and underestimate the TCs but you did the same in 1963 to 1974 and look what happened there.
The first and last paragraphs of my last post refer. Thank you.