The International Tribune - [Superique goes to Brussels]

[Deus Naturae]

Atlasia prepares to emergency action: “This is our first strike against ISIS. Drones are going to be sent to Iraq immediately”.

Nyman, D.C.
14th of June, 2014.

Pentagon’s chief representative and four-star General Mosley Urquhart announced to the press that twenty Predator drones were going to be sent to Iraq in a period of 2 weeks (the first ten will be there just in a week) and that military technicians were expected to travel along with these machines in order to help Iraqis operate with those technologies. The General also announced that ten Sentinel drones were already being sent to Iraq in order to help its government map the region under ISIS control.

During the event that happened in the Pentagon, protests of pacifists groups were happening and the activists were calling Atlasia not to intervene the region. “It’s none of Atlasian business to interfere in Iraq, we shall let its own people decide their own paths” shouted one protester while other said “It’s funny, our President and our SoEA talks a lot about Human Rights and Peace and now they want to go back to Iraq. Seriously? That’s certainly a foreign policy backlash of this Administration”. A representative of Duke’s government also arrived in the place and before trying to talk with the protesters told to reporters “Duke and Superique don’t want to see war, but, if we don’t do nothing, Iraq will be under ISIS control in a few months”.

Will these drones still be sent if the Senate rejects Duke's plan?

[Sec. of State Superique]

Atlasia prepares to emergency action: “This is our first strike against ISIS. Drones are going to be sent to Iraq immediately”.

Nyman, D.C.
14th of June, 2014.

Pentagon’s chief representative and four-star General Mosley Urquhart announced to the press that twenty Predator drones were going to be sent to Iraq in a period of 2 weeks (the first ten will be there just in a week) and that military technicians were expected to travel along with these machines in order to help Iraqis operate with those technologies. The General also announced that ten Sentinel drones were already being sent to Iraq in order to help its government map the region under ISIS control.

During the event that happened in the Pentagon, protests of pacifists groups were happening and the activists were calling Atlasia not to intervene the region. “It’s none of Atlasian business to interfere in Iraq, we shall let its own people decide their own paths” shouted one protester while other said “It’s funny, our President and our SoEA talks a lot about Human Rights and Peace and now they want to go back to Iraq. Seriously? That’s certainly a foreign policy backlash of this Administration”. A representative of Duke’s government also arrived in the place and before trying to talk with the protesters told to reporters “Duke and Superique don’t want to see war, but, if we don’t do nothing, Iraq will be under ISIS control in a few months”.

Will these drones still be sent if the Senate rejects Duke's plan?

If the Senators believe that allowing ISIS take over Iraq is fine, then, what else shall I do?

[Deus Naturae]

Atlasia prepares to emergency action: “This is our first strike against ISIS. Drones are going to be sent to Iraq immediately”.

Nyman, D.C.
14th of June, 2014.

Pentagon’s chief representative and four-star General Mosley Urquhart announced to the press that twenty Predator drones were going to be sent to Iraq in a period of 2 weeks (the first ten will be there just in a week) and that military technicians were expected to travel along with these machines in order to help Iraqis operate with those technologies. The General also announced that ten Sentinel drones were already being sent to Iraq in order to help its government map the region under ISIS control.

During the event that happened in the Pentagon, protests of pacifists groups were happening and the activists were calling Atlasia not to intervene the region. “It’s none of Atlasian business to interfere in Iraq, we shall let its own people decide their own paths” shouted one protester while other said “It’s funny, our President and our SoEA talks a lot about Human Rights and Peace and now they want to go back to Iraq. Seriously? That’s certainly a foreign policy backlash of this Administration”. A representative of Duke’s government also arrived in the place and before trying to talk with the protesters told to reporters “Duke and Superique don’t want to see war, but, if we don’t do nothing, Iraq will be under ISIS control in a few months”.

Will these drones still be sent if the Senate rejects Duke's plan?

If the Senators believe that allowing ISIS take over Iraq is fine, then, what else shall I do?

I take it that's a yes? If so, what gives you the constitutional authority to take this action?

[Potus]

Atlasia prepares to emergency action: “This is our first strike against ISIS. Drones are going to be sent to Iraq immediately”.

Nyman, D.C.
14th of June, 2014.

Pentagon’s chief representative and four-star General Mosley Urquhart announced to the press that twenty Predator drones were going to be sent to Iraq in a period of 2 weeks (the first ten will be there just in a week) and that military technicians were expected to travel along with these machines in order to help Iraqis operate with those technologies. The General also announced that ten Sentinel drones were already being sent to Iraq in order to help its government map the region under ISIS control.

During the event that happened in the Pentagon, protests of pacifists groups were happening and the activists were calling Atlasia not to intervene the region. “It’s none of Atlasian business to interfere in Iraq, we shall let its own people decide their own paths” shouted one protester while other said “It’s funny, our President and our SoEA talks a lot about Human Rights and Peace and now they want to go back to Iraq. Seriously? That’s certainly a foreign policy backlash of this Administration”. A representative of Duke’s government also arrived in the place and before trying to talk with the protesters told to reporters “Duke and Superique don’t want to see war, but, if we don’t do nothing, Iraq will be under ISIS control in a few months”.

Will these drones still be sent if the Senate rejects Duke's plan?

If the Senators believe that allowing ISIS take over Iraq is fine, then, what else shall I do?

I take it that's a yes? If so, what gives you the constitutional authority to take this action?

This is the definition of a police action, which is strongly within the power of the President. We're going to restore order. There is no need for a declaration of war. We aren't going to war.

[Deus Naturae]

Atlasia prepares to emergency action: “This is our first strike against ISIS. Drones are going to be sent to Iraq immediately”.

Nyman, D.C.
14th of June, 2014.

Pentagon’s chief representative and four-star General Mosley Urquhart announced to the press that twenty Predator drones were going to be sent to Iraq in a period of 2 weeks (the first ten will be there just in a week) and that military technicians were expected to travel along with these machines in order to help Iraqis operate with those technologies. The General also announced that ten Sentinel drones were already being sent to Iraq in order to help its government map the region under ISIS control.

During the event that happened in the Pentagon, protests of pacifists groups were happening and the activists were calling Atlasia not to intervene the region. “It’s none of Atlasian business to interfere in Iraq, we shall let its own people decide their own paths” shouted one protester while other said “It’s funny, our President and our SoEA talks a lot about Human Rights and Peace and now they want to go back to Iraq. Seriously? That’s certainly a foreign policy backlash of this Administration”. A representative of Duke’s government also arrived in the place and before trying to talk with the protesters told to reporters “Duke and Superique don’t want to see war, but, if we don’t do nothing, Iraq will be under ISIS control in a few months”.

Will these drones still be sent if the Senate rejects Duke's plan?

If the Senators believe that allowing ISIS take over Iraq is fine, then, what else shall I do?

I take it that's a yes? If so, what gives you the constitutional authority to take this action?

This is the definition of a police action, which is strongly within the power of the President. We're going to restore order. There is no need for a declaration of war. We aren't going to war.

Wait...so this is being done by the President, not the SoEA? If so, from where in the Constitution does the President derive the authority for such "police actions?"

[Sec. of State Superique]

Execuse me, but Riley is speaking for himself. This is clearly not an act of War since we are not declaring war to Iraq but we are fighting the terrorists within it. Therefore, while the Senate is the sole one that can declare War, I'm not necessarily declarong War in the traditional judicial term. Furthermore, the whole Constitutional Things seems a little bit strange.... The Constitution doesn't say much about External Affairs and its very shallow when it comes to the Presidential Powers, but I don't believe that any of our actions untill now are out of the proper legal boundaries.

[Deus Naturae]

Execuse me, but Riley is speaking for himself. This is clearly not an act of War since we are not declaring war to Iraq but we are fighting the terrorists within it. Therefore, while the Senate is the sole one that can declare War, I'm not necessarily declarong War in the traditional judicial term. Furthermore, the whole Constitutional Things seems a little bit strange.... The Constitution doesn't say much about External Affairs and its very shallow when it comes to the Presidential Powers, but I don't believe that any of our actions untill now are out of the proper legal boundaries.

Ugh, this whole situation is just so unclear. Who is taking this action(s) you describe in this thread, you or the President? Is this action the same, connected with, or totally separate from the attack plan announced by the President?

[Sec. of State Superique]

Execuse me, but Riley is speaking for himself. This is clearly not an act of War since we are not declaring war to Iraq but we are fighting the terrorists within it. Therefore, while the Senate is the sole one that can declare War, I'm not necessarily declarong War in the traditional judicial term. Furthermore, the whole Constitutional Things seems a little bit strange.... The Constitution doesn't say much about External Affairs and its very shallow when it comes to the Presidential Powers, but I don't believe that any of our actions untill now are out of the proper legal boundaries.

Ugh, this whole situation is just so unclear. Who is taking this action(s) you describe in this thread, you or the President? Is this action the same, connected with, or totally separate from the attack plan announced by the President?

It's the same, maybe you should have read both texts and compared. Anyway, I prefer to wait. There are evidences that DemPGH will choose another SoEA so maybe we should let this whole Iraqi Crisis to the next Administration. I don't want to take some actions, which may be reversed in days....

[Sec. of State Superique]

The Israel-Palestine Peace Plan
The End

Palestinian Referendum and Election:
Big win for the Peace Plan and Fatah.

17th of June 2014.
Al-Qud, State of Palestine.

During the beginning of this year, only a few Palestinians would believe that a Peace Plan would be approved between its leadership and the Israeli’s one. Now, however, it seems that the voice of moderation, of pragmatism and of peace has triumphed over the Palestinian Territories. The Referendum and the Elections held between the 14th and the 15th of this year has shown that Palestinians, against the current radical and fundamentalist trend that now erupts in the Middle East, had opted to the path of peace and serenity.

The polls were already saying that a Referendum would be strongly approved by the Palestinian society but it seems that even the most accurate public opinion research wasn’t able to capture the enthusiasm over the peace plan and underestimated the support for peace in Palestine. A Google-Al-Jazeera Poll taken during the 7th and the 8th of June showed that 72% of Palestinian would give a yes for the peace plan but the results were quite different: 86% of Palestinians voted YES for the Peace Plan and only 14% of its people stood against the peace offer.

Another surprising result was the margin of victory of Fatah. There were already strong indications that Fatah would win by a confortable margin but Mr. Abbas was worried that some unexpected situation could led to a strong Hamas showing, just like in during the legislative election of 2006. However, the Palestinian situation is not the same anymore. The signing of the Peace Plan has shown to the Palestinian society that an agreement was feasible and that the path of moderation chosen by Fatah was good for the soon-to-become country. Furthermore, since cutting financial ties with the Iranian Republic and having a sharp relation with the current government of Egypt, Hamas has weakened significantly and a strong popular fatigue soon emerged after the success of a Peace Plan.

In the end, Fatah won more than 63% of the Popular Vote while Hamas won just 25% of votes (the PFLP, the Alternative, Independent Palestine and the Third Way won together 12% of the popular vote). Since the seats are half distributed proportionally and half distributed by an electoral district system, Fatah was able to clinch several seats with its huge margin of votes. Over the 132 seats, Fatah won 85, Hamas 36, the Independent Palestine-Third Way 5, PFLP 4 and the Alternative 2.  The UN personnel supervised the elections and no irregularities were found.

The newly elected legislators are also expected to elaborate the new Constitution of the Palestinian State and that is why the victory of moderates has made a consistent part of the Global Community happy with the results. Moreover, some leaders of Hamas told reporters that they would accept the results, although they still believe that Palestinians are entitled to have back all of its “original” territories”. Mr. Abbas, however, pointed out that this was the “triumph of a peaceful solution over a terrible violent option” and that now the Israeli Government has received the Green Light to approve the Peace Plan under the Knesset. SoEA Superique celebrated the results and told reporters that he was more than happy with the results of the Referendum and of the Legislative Election in Palestine.

77 - Knesset Approves the Peace Plan

23rd of June 2014.
Yerushalayim, State of Israel.

It was eight o’clock in Jerusalem and it was still happening the voting procedure to approve the Peace Plan designed by Mr. Herzog and Mr. Abbas, with SoEA Superique assistance, in Camp David III. After several failed amendments and several speeches about a quite varied set of topics, voting started in the Knesset. Most sessions of the Israeli Legislature don’t have a great attention of the public but this key event of Israel’s History ended up getting a lot of attention from the largest media outlets in the Jewish State. In Jerusalem, a large youth group was watching a huge television with the voting results under the Knesset, there was agitation when Netanyahu ended up voting in favor of the Plan after criticizing it several times – “He doesn’t want to be known as the guy who broke peace” said a student. However, the public only got really emotional when the 61st vote was counted.
 
In the streets, a lot of emotion coming from the Pro-Peace Plan and the opposition sprung up but it was the Knesset where things almost went crazy. There were angry speeches coming from MKs of the far-right Israeli political parties; Mr. Eldad, leader of the radical right-wing Otzma LeYisrael, tried to filibuster the voting procedure; Mr. Bennet scrapped the peace plan and called both Herzog a “terrorist” and Netanyahu a “traitor of the right”; some former members of Likud, now in Yisrael Beitenu and in the Jewish Home, also criticized heavily the current “Peace Coalition” but in the end the Peace Plan has won and it was approved by a confortable margin of MKs.  This was the voting pattern:

The Labor Movement (23) – 23 votes For the Plan
Jewish Home (Bayit Yehudi) (23) – 23 Votes Against the Plan
Yesh Atid (15) – 15 votes For the Plan
Meretz (12) – 12 votes For the Plan
Likud (10) – 6 votes For the Plan (Netanyahu included) – 2 votes Against the Plan – 2 Abstentions.
Shas  (9)– 7 votes For the Plan – 2 Abstentions
Yisrael Beitenu (9)– 5 votes Against the Plan – 3 Abstentions – 1 vote For the Plan
United Torah Judaism (5)– 2 votes For the Plan – 2 vote Against the Plan – 1 Abstention
United Arab List (4) – 4 votes For the Plan
Hadash (4) – 4 votes For the Plan
Balad (3) – 3 votes For the Plan
Otzma Yisrael(3) – 3 votes Against the Plan.

Total:
77 votes FOR the Plan
35 votes AGAINST the Plan
8 Abstentions

The result was highly praised by the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Isaac Herzog, and Palestinian President Abbas was also pretty happy with the results. Fireworks were seen in Tel Aviv, in Jericho, in Ramallah and in Jerusalem and large group of people went to the Israelis and Palestinian streets to celebrate. The Peace Movement subtly sprung up on every corner of Israel and Palestine raising expectations for the future. The prospects of the Israeli Society are so optimistic that there are even rumors that the Israeli Government wants to use this whole enthusiasm to call an early election, Herzog doesn’t deny that. The Atlasian Secretary of External Affairs, Superique, congratulated the Israeli MKs for “taking the right decision” and took the opportunity to fly to Jerusalem where he is expected to host a solemnity between him, Mr. Abbas and Mr, Herzog.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This is a plan most hostile towards Israeli territorial integrity. Call everybody back to the table and don't leave till the territorial boundaries after the Yom Kippur War are given back to Israel. If not, I will.

[Sec. of State Superique]

This is a plan most hostile towards Israeli territorial integrity. Call everybody back to the table and don't leave till the territorial boundaries after the Yom Kippur War are given back to Israel. If not, I will.

Really, you are a supporter of Greater Israel!? How cute! Maybe I'm confused but I believe that you want to see Israel become an Apartheid isolated and antidemocratic state in the future or at least you seem to forget that, by keeping the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Israel, in a near future, won't have a Jewish Majority! I'm not the one that is trying to make Israel collapse, that folk is you... Moreover, what do you mean by "I will", are you going to create a movement to go back to the negotiation table? How will you name it? "Greater Israel Super PAC", "In Apartheid we trust" or maybe "I don't want peace anyway"?

Israel got most of its settlements, Palestine is a state with no military, non-radical groups are governing Palestine now, Jerusalem will be more integrated and less divided than it is now, Israel will stop to be seen as an invader or a colonialist state by many nations, the Arab Countries will finally recognize the Jewish State and still you say that this plan is harmful for Israel. Do you know what is harmful to Israel and Sionism? It is to remain ruling over Judea and Samaria while the Muslim population keeps increasing, it is to keep working on a illegitimate control over lands that don't belong to them and it's to be kept isolating itself.

 I really don't see your point. You keep talking about Jerusalem and that seems your only are of concern. Mr. Abbas and Mr. Herzog made an outstanding deal, nothing was imposed, nothing was mandatory, they came out with this reasonable and sensible agreement. There's no way we will go back to the negotiation table just to see Israel with full control of Jerusalem.  We were so careful about the whole project that I can't even understand why you bother so much to post your periodical and empty criticism. I don't want to argue with you JCL, nonetheless, despite all your contributions to Atlasia,I see no reason why should I agree with your point of view. You also talk about "Territorial Integrity" but you seem to forget that we've allowed Israel to remain with some important settlements: Maaleh Adumin, Gush Etzion, Ariel and so many others.

Best Regards,

SoEA Superique.

[Simfan34]

This is a plan most hostile towards Israeli territorial integrity. Call everybody back to the table and don't leave till the territorial boundaries after the Yom Kippur War are given back to Israel. If not, I will.

What are you going to do?

[sentinel]

JCL -- don't worry, its going to work out perfectly because the SOEA both creates AND solves the problems. There is no problem with the way the GM/SOEA/SOIA positions are setup.

[Sec. of State Superique]

JCL -- don't worry, its going to work out perfectly because the SOEA both creates AND solves the problems. There is no problem with the way the GM/SOEA/SOIA positions are setup.

I'm sorry, is this a criticism? =P

[sentinel]

JCL -- don't worry, its going to work out perfectly because the SOEA both creates AND solves the problems. There is no problem with the way the GM/SOEA/SOIA positions are setup.

I'm sorry, is this a criticism? =P

Not of you but of the way the position is setup. It's absurd.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

JCL -- don't worry, its going to work out perfectly because the SOEA both creates AND solves the problems. There is no problem with the way the GM/SOEA/SOIA positions are setup.

I'm sorry, is this a criticism? =P

Not of you but of the way the position is setup. It's absurd.

To be fair, as someone who actually gave a stuff about foreign policy as president and was SoEA, it's a BITCH of a topic to get anyone interested enough to permit the SoEA to step back and not be, to put it plainly, judge and jury.

I think it's hard to not have that kind of set up, but bodies like the Senate and the President and the public need to care enough to start to create different angles and complications to scenarios established by the SoEA.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This is a plan most hostile towards Israeli territorial integrity. Call everybody back to the table and don't leave till the territorial boundaries after the Yom Kippur War are given back to Israel. If not, I will.

Really, you are a supporter of Greater Israel!? How cute! Maybe I'm confused but I believe that you want to see Israel become an Apartheid isolated and antidemocratic state in the future or at least you seem to forget that, by keeping the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Israel, in a near future, won't have a Jewish Majority! I'm not the one that is trying to make Israel collapse, that folk is you... Moreover, what do you mean by "I will", are you going to create a movement to go back to the negotiation table? How will you name it? "Greater Israel Super PAC", "In Apartheid we trust" or maybe "I don't want peace anyway"?

Israel got most of its settlements, Palestine is a state with no military, non-radical groups are governing Palestine now, Jerusalem will be more integrated and less divided than it is now, Israel will stop to be seen as an invader or a colonialist state by many nations, the Arab Countries will finally recognize the Jewish State and still you say that this plan is harmful for Israel. Do you know what is harmful to Israel and Sionism? It is to remain ruling over Judea and Samaria while the Muslim population keeps increasing, it is to keep working on a illegitimate control over lands that don't belong to them and it's to be kept isolating itself.

 I really don't see your point. You keep talking about Jerusalem and that seems your only are of concern. Mr. Abbas and Mr. Herzog made an outstanding deal, nothing was imposed, nothing was mandatory, they came out with this reasonable and sensible agreement. There's no way we will go back to the negotiation table just to see Israel with full control of Jerusalem.  We were so careful about the whole project that I can't even understand why you bother so much to post your periodical and empty criticism. I don't want to argue with you JCL, nonetheless, despite all your contributions to Atlasia,I see no reason why should I agree with your point of view. You also talk about "Territorial Integrity" but you seem to forget that we've allowed Israel to remain with some important settlements: Maaleh Adumin, Gush Etzion, Ariel and so many others.

Best Regards,

SoEA Superique.

I'm not advocating an apartheid state. This is a matter of property rights and the Atlasian government has no right to make Israel concede land won in a just war back to their Islamic neighbors. The Palestinians  need to agree to live by Israel's laws or go to an Islamic friendly nation.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is a plan most hostile towards Israeli territorial integrity. Call everybody back to the table and don't leave till the territorial boundaries after the Yom Kippur War are given back to Israel. If not, I will.

Really, you are a supporter of Greater Israel!? How cute! Maybe I'm confused but I believe that you want to see Israel become an Apartheid isolated and antidemocratic state in the future or at least you seem to forget that, by keeping the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Israel, in a near future, won't have a Jewish Majority! I'm not the one that is trying to make Israel collapse, that folk is you... Moreover, what do you mean by "I will", are you going to create a movement to go back to the negotiation table? How will you name it? "Greater Israel Super PAC", "In Apartheid we trust" or maybe "I don't want peace anyway"?

Israel got most of its settlements, Palestine is a state with no military, non-radical groups are governing Palestine now, Jerusalem will be more integrated and less divided than it is now, Israel will stop to be seen as an invader or a colonialist state by many nations, the Arab Countries will finally recognize the Jewish State and still you say that this plan is harmful for Israel. Do you know what is harmful to Israel and Sionism? It is to remain ruling over Judea and Samaria while the Muslim population keeps increasing, it is to keep working on a illegitimate control over lands that don't belong to them and it's to be kept isolating itself.

 I really don't see your point. You keep talking about Jerusalem and that seems your only are of concern. Mr. Abbas and Mr. Herzog made an outstanding deal, nothing was imposed, nothing was mandatory, they came out with this reasonable and sensible agreement. There's no way we will go back to the negotiation table just to see Israel with full control of Jerusalem.  We were so careful about the whole project that I can't even understand why you bother so much to post your periodical and empty criticism. I don't want to argue with you JCL, nonetheless, despite all your contributions to Atlasia,I see no reason why should I agree with your point of view. You also talk about "Territorial Integrity" but you seem to forget that we've allowed Israel to remain with some important settlements: Maaleh Adumin, Gush Etzion, Ariel and so many others.

Best Regards,

SoEA Superique.

I'm not advocating an apartheid state. This is a matter of property rights and the Atlasian government has no right to make Israel concede land won in a just war back to their Islamic neighbors. The Palestinians  need to agree to live by Israel's laws or go to an Islamic friendly nation.

Unfortunately, the laws of Israel and how they are applied almost guarantee an apartheid-like state. This needed to be addressed and hopefully, once the agreement starts to be implemented, the right balance between equality and decent living-standards for Palestinians and security and recognition for Israelis can be struck.

An agreement has been reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authorities, passed by the Knesset and overwhelmingly supported by the Palestinian people... you're in no place to call anyone back to the table to suit your politico-religious agenda.

[sentinel]

JCL -- don't worry, its going to work out perfectly because the SOEA both creates AND solves the problems. There is no problem with the way the GM/SOEA/SOIA positions are setup.

I'm sorry, is this a criticism? =P

Not of you but of the way the position is setup. It's absurd.

To be fair, as someone who actually gave a stuff about foreign policy as president and was SoEA, it's a BITCH of a topic to get anyone interested enough to permit the SoEA to step back and not be, to put it plainly, judge and jury.

I think it's hard to not have that kind of set up, but bodies like the Senate and the President and the public need to care enough to start to create different angles and complications to scenarios established by the SoEA.

Better off creating a scenario and no one responding, than...doing the whole thing yourself? Its not a game if you're the sole person creating a problem and solving it...its just Superique writing on the what-if board if thats the case

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

JCL -- don't worry, its going to work out perfectly because the SOEA both creates AND solves the problems. There is no problem with the way the GM/SOEA/SOIA positions are setup.

I'm sorry, is this a criticism? =P

Not of you but of the way the position is setup. It's absurd.

To be fair, as someone who actually gave a stuff about foreign policy as president and was SoEA, it's a BITCH of a topic to get anyone interested enough to permit the SoEA to step back and not be, to put it plainly, judge and jury.

I think it's hard to not have that kind of set up, but bodies like the Senate and the President and the public need to care enough to start to create different angles and complications to scenarios established by the SoEA.

Better off creating a scenario and no one responding, than...doing the whole thing yourself? Its not a game if you're the sole person creating a problem and solving it...its just Superique writing on the what-if board if thats the case

I don't disagree that the scenario is not ideal... it's just I don't see foreign policy getting enough attention to say, hand it to the GM for example. If this is to be close to realistic, foreign policy needs a place, so sadly, it's down to the SoEA to actually do anything about it.

If you have more people getting involved on the topic, the Senate and President and public talking about it, engaging on the topic - that can shift events and outcomes. Trust me, I tried on numerous fronts to get people talking - I did get traction on the chemical weapons in Syria angle... but Euro-Zone instability? No etc etc

[Sec. of State Superique]

This is pathetic! All my actions took so long to hapen that anyone could have interupted me and have a discussion on the issues. Moreover, there was time enough for the GM or anyonelse make a problematic about the Peace Deal.  I'm just doing my job and I've done a favor for Atlasia because now we can finally talk about Foreign Affairs matter in this game that is not related to the Palestine and Israel.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is pathetic! All my actions took so long to hapen that anyone could have interupted me and have a discussion on the issues. Moreover, there was time enough for the GM or anyonelse make a problematic about the Peace Deal.  I'm just doing my job and I've done a favor for Atlasia because now we can finally talk about Foreign Affairs matter in this game that is not related to the Palestine and Israel.

That was my point... as SoEA you can only do what you can. Very often you're the only one moving foreign policy discussions.

[sentinel]

This is pathetic! All my actions took so long to hapen that anyone could have interupted me and have a discussion on the issues. Moreover, there was time enough for the GM or anyonelse make a problematic about the Peace Deal.  I'm just doing my job and I've done a favor for Atlasia because now we can finally talk about Foreign Affairs matter in this game that is not related to the Palestine and Israel.

That was my point... as SoEA you can only do what you can. Very often you're the only one moving foreign policy discussions.

Remember, my point is not about Superique's performance in the job he was given. My point is we need to change the job.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yes, considering the troubles we have had at GM since Nix left, we have had to proceed with our own story lines. No one can create a GM out of thin air or control what a specific nominee does, so we do as best we can under the circumstances. Superique has done a great job as SoEA during my 8 months in office, and I have no complaints and will not criticize anything he has taken the liberty to do to show that at least something is going on internationally.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This is a plan most hostile towards Israeli territorial integrity. Call everybody back to the table and don't leave till the territorial boundaries after the Yom Kippur War are given back to Israel. If not, I will.

Really, you are a supporter of Greater Israel!? How cute! Maybe I'm confused but I believe that you want to see Israel become an Apartheid isolated and antidemocratic state in the future or at least you seem to forget that, by keeping the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Israel, in a near future, won't have a Jewish Majority! I'm not the one that is trying to make Israel collapse, that folk is you... Moreover, what do you mean by "I will", are you going to create a movement to go back to the negotiation table? How will you name it? "Greater Israel Super PAC", "In Apartheid we trust" or maybe "I don't want peace anyway"?

Israel got most of its settlements, Palestine is a state with no military, non-radical groups are governing Palestine now, Jerusalem will be more integrated and less divided than it is now, Israel will stop to be seen as an invader or a colonialist state by many nations, the Arab Countries will finally recognize the Jewish State and still you say that this plan is harmful for Israel. Do you know what is harmful to Israel and Sionism? It is to remain ruling over Judea and Samaria while the Muslim population keeps increasing, it is to keep working on a illegitimate control over lands that don't belong to them and it's to be kept isolating itself.

 I really don't see your point. You keep talking about Jerusalem and that seems your only are of concern. Mr. Abbas and Mr. Herzog made an outstanding deal, nothing was imposed, nothing was mandatory, they came out with this reasonable and sensible agreement. There's no way we will go back to the negotiation table just to see Israel with full control of Jerusalem.  We were so careful about the whole project that I can't even understand why you bother so much to post your periodical and empty criticism. I don't want to argue with you JCL, nonetheless, despite all your contributions to Atlasia,I see no reason why should I agree with your point of view. You also talk about "Territorial Integrity" but you seem to forget that we've allowed Israel to remain with some important settlements: Maaleh Adumin, Gush Etzion, Ariel and so many others.

Best Regards,

SoEA Superique.

I'm not advocating an apartheid state. This is a matter of property rights and the Atlasian government has no right to make Israel concede land won in a just war back to their Islamic neighbors. The Palestinians  need to agree to live by Israel's laws or go to an Islamic friendly nation.

Unfortunately, the laws of Israel and how they are applied almost guarantee an apartheid-like state. This needed to be addressed and hopefully, once the agreement starts to be implemented, the right balance between equality and decent living-standards for Palestinians and security and recognition for Israelis can be struck.

An agreement has been reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authorities, passed by the Knesset and overwhelmingly supported by the Palestinian people... you're in no place to call anyone back to the table to suit your politico-religious agenda.

I could accuse the Atlasian brokers of this deal of being in the back pocket of repressive Islamic regimes and sadly I'd be proven right. All because the pro-Israel and centrist leaning diplomats were purged out of Dukes state department. The only reason Israel went along was because the GM put a friendly government in instead of the rightly elected Netanyahu one. Even with the Atlasian changes Israel's government should've largely followed RL.