Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The petition for Palestinian statehood represents a critical bargaining chip for the west.

The West can use veto power of Pelstine as a bargaining chip to get the Arabic League on board with things such as terrorism.

At 9/26/11 09:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The petition for Palestinian statehood represents a critical bargaining chip for the west.

The West can use veto power of Pelstine as a bargaining chip to get the Arabic League on board with things such as terrorism.

This decision can however become a double-edged sword. Do you still remember one of Osama's 9/11's motives?

At 9/27/11 06:11 AM, MattDogg wrote: Do you still remember one of Osama's 9/11's motives?

fuck them; Osama would be condemning the West's actions in Libya even though they asked us to come help, if he could.

I say we let Hitler decide, shall we? lol jay kay.

I can't believe the Israelis are so f8cking stupid as to kill their own state because they don't have the guts to stand up to the Masada cult of the settlers.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/
27/3089616/knesset-to-vote-on-annexing-w est-bank

At 9/27/11 08:41 PM, MattDogg wrote: I can't believe the Israelis are so f8cking stupid as to kill their own state because they don't have the guts to stand up to the Masada cult of the settlers.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/
27/3089616/knesset-to-vote-on-annexing-w est-bank

This sounds like a play to kill off the statehood bid. By the terms of this Israel is drawing a line in the sand and very clearly saying "with us, or against us" and hopes to make sure her existing allies, and even her freinimes, will kill the vote dead in the UN. Which wouldn't be a bad deal for the US since if the measure doesn't pass to begin with, they don't have to veto and endure the political consequences of such a move. Not that I don't think Israel would love to grab that territory for itself, but I really think the goal here is more about making sure the bid is DOA vs. honestly taking the West Bank and complicating or potentially forever crippling the peace process that her greatest allies have poured so much time and effort into.

At 9/26/11 04:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This whole "who was there first" argument is a load of crap. Frankly, very few countries, especially major countries, can claim they were there first.

I claim we were there first to claim it after the canaanites. Although there are nations who gave up some of their lands, can you prove the most of them did?

All of these "ancestral rights" arguments can go by the wayside.

And so every right of any nation for it's own land. Which mean annulling the palestinan's right for their own land.

In the disputed areas who most deserves it based on current populations, recent military and political history, and economic concerns.

Who most deserves it is who owns it. You do not get a property because you have a "concern" in it.

Focus only on the current issues, as focusing on the distant past will only further the current stalemate.

The palestinan leadership admitted to want all of israel, even if we gace up judea and samaria it wouldn't be enough for them. Based on history, their land is jordan. I do not see a reason why they shouldn't establish the palestinian country in their own homeland.

One nation, two peoples unified. Why can't we just listen to the kids on this one who for some reason have more common sense than their parents? They sound naive yet it makes more sense to just forgive and forget.

gah my heads in a cloud go ahead and keep on being reactionaries. Hunt each other to extinction if you will.

world could use a few more pacifists.

In other news;