Senator HagridOfTheDeep—Nyman Office

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Awesome. Read it all, and I don't really have too much to add to what you've said. I'd emphasize though that decrying Zionism is a little bit different than decrying capitalism, mostly for the reason that Zionism is not singularly political. It is an ideology centred on Jewish nationalism, so there are certainly some complex undercurrents behind anti-Zionist beliefs. Those undercurrents involve anti-Semitism.

I also agree that, in the event of a two-state solution, a large portion of Jews would certainly head over to Israel and many Muslims would move to Palestine. Still, sense of place is a strong force that sometimes trumps rationality. As such, I could forsee a minority of each population remaining in the sovereign country that would seem to be at odds with the group's religious lifestyle. One group being allowed to exist as a minority in the other country would not automatically mean that the local political leadership was amicable towards the minority.

And yes, al-Qaeda has been weakened. But I would still call it a very active organization with enough of a wide-reaching membership to continue propagating violence. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PIJ could survive a counter-attack, and surviving members would not necessarily have to stay in Gaza. Neither of us, I don't think, are interested in a second "War on Terror," so I believe it's best to take the nuclear weapons out of play before such a situation could arise. I understand the logistics of attacking Iran are more forboding than the logistics of attacking Iraq. Still, I have faith that our special forces could swifty accomplish Atlasian mission objectives with a smaller contingency of soldiers and a more covert plan of action.

[Donerail]

Awesome. Read it all, and I don't really have too much to add to what you've said. I'd emphasize though that decrying Zionism is a little bit different than decrying capitalism, mostly for the reason that Zionism is not singularly political. It is an ideology centred on Jewish nationalism, so there are certainly some complex undercurrents behind anti-Zionist beliefs. Those undercurrents involve anti-Semitism.

Well, not all of the undercurrents; at least to me, it seems pretty hard for the Haredi Jews to be counted as anti-Semites, given that they're Jews and all. Some of them are, but some of them aren't.

I also agree that, in the event of a two-state solution, a large portion of Jews would certainly head over to Israel and many Muslims would move to Palestine. Still, sense of place is a strong force that sometimes trumps rationality. As such, I could forsee a minority of each population remaining in the sovereign country that would seem to be at odds with the group's religious lifestyle. One group being allowed to exist as a minority in the other country would not automatically mean that the local political leadership was amicable towards the minority.

Do you think that 1:1 land swaps (as promoted in the Geneva Initiative) could be a feasible solution to this issue?

[Pingvin]

Endorsed!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Endorsed!

Thanks, Pingvin! 

Well, not all of the undercurrents; at least to me, it seems pretty hard for the Haredi Jews to be counted as anti-Semites, given that they're Jews and all. Some of them are, but some of them aren't.

Sure. Fortunately for my original argument, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a Haredi Jew.

I’ll make an official statement on Israel-Palestine shortly. I appreciate the question.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

—Israeli-Palestinian Tensions—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

Israel is a close ally of Atlasia, and its status as a stable democracy makes it an important beacon of hope in the Middle East. Israel affords its people the basic rights of human dignity and liberty—as such, it is important for us, as representatives of a likeminded country, to stand by Israel. Our partnership has a long history. Thus, should outside parties threaten Israel’s sovereignty with violence or bloodshed, we must be willing to fulfill our commitments to Israel. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Jihad Movement, and even the government of Iran pose serious dangers to the stability of this region.

That being said, Palestinian claims to land currently within Israel are understandable—in fact, I believe a rational compromise between the Israelis and Palestinians is the only way to temper regional tensions. A two-state solution similar to the one outlined in the Geneva Accord represents this sort of compromise. More specifically, I do believe a small number of 1-for-1 land swaps (beyond the Israeli surrender of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip) could potentially satisfy both parties. It would help ensure that areas with a dense Jewish population remained in Israel, while Muslim-majority areas could be incoroporated into a new Palestine. Either way, I am in-line with the 2000 Clinton Parameters in believing that the Palestinians must be willing to waive their perceived “right of return” for any solution to have a lasting impact.

The above are, to me, preferable talking points for our diplomats to promote on the international stage. Importantly, though, I want to make it clear that tensions between Israel and Palestine are not ours to solve. While Atlasia may, in the future, be willing to act as a moderator between both groups, Israel and Palestine must ultimately be responsible for reaching their own compromise. We will help defend Israel against terror if need be—but we will not determine its affairs.

[Napoleon]

Good luck. Am I right in assuming the hut in your banner is representative of your feudalistic economic policies, and in no way related to a series of British fantasy novels?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Neither, actually! Wouldn’t you know it, but the construction company with the Hogwarts contract couldn’t build anything bigger that close to the forest—EPA said something about an “endangered unicorn population.”

[Donerail]

Well, not all of the undercurrents; at least to me, it seems pretty hard for the Haredi Jews to be counted as anti-Semites, given that they're Jews and all. Some of them are, but some of them aren't.

Sure. Fortunately for my original argument, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a Haredi Jew.

Or is he?

Either way, I am in-line with the 2000 Clinton Parameters in believing that the Palestinians must be willing to waive their perceived “right of return” for any solution to have a lasting impact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about the ICCPR and Resolution 194?

[futurepres]

You have my endorsement.

[Talleyrand]

You have my full endorsement

I am particularly supportive of your beliefs regarding Israel-Palestine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Endorsed.  You've got my vote!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

As I told you via pm Endorsed for first preference. I would've stepped in myself but I've got important work in the Mideast Assembly to accomplish.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd really like to thank the above few posters for their support. It means a lot to me, and it's awesome to have y'all on board. JCL–your work in the Mideast has been admirable. Hope things are going well with your initiative against human trafficking.

Sure. Fortunately for my original argument, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a Haredi Jew.

Or is he?

Touché.

Either way, I am in-line with the 2000 Clinton Parameters in believing that the Palestinians must be willing to waive their perceived “right of return” for any solution to have a lasting impact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about the ICCPR and Resolution 194?

I’m aware of the mobility rights afforded to everyone via the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the Palestinian Right of Return is too complex to simply be described as the right to freely move within and between countries. Of course I believe Palestinians and Israelis should be allowed to live wherever they can find a home. Domestic laws would obviously dictate such issues (laws which each state has the right to create without interference), but an open and fair system is preferable.

What is not preferable is the idea of Palestinian refugees re-entering their old territory, re-claiming occupied property, and displacing current citizens. I understand that many Palestinians were forced out of their homes unwillingly in 1948. Perhaps, had a solution come about sooner, it would have been reasonable and feasible to see those refugees return to their homes. Now, 64 years later, Jewish families are established in these homes—families who may have had nothing to do with the original displacement of Palestinians. Why create another refugee problem?  

These Palestinian claims are legitimate, but they do not represent a sacred right. They are ambit claims that should be treated as such in a negotiation process.

Palestinians should, however, have access to holy structures, and the new Palestinian state should encompass as much holy land as possible without shortchanging Israel (Resolution 194 partly discusses this concept). As I said earlier, 1-for-1 land exchanges could be helpful here. Generally, though, too much time has passed between Proposition 194 and today for the document’s recommendations to remain practical. Importantly, Proposition 194 is not legally binding, as it was a General Assembly resolution and did not come from the Security Council.

The bottom line is this—no progress will be made if Palestinians maintain their right of return. 50% of Palestinians actually agreed with the Clinton Parameters, which made the same case I am currently making. Both sides need to be willing to compromise.

[Supersonic]

What would be your priorities if elected to the Atlasian Senate?

[NHI]

You have my endorsement!

[Lincoln Republican]

Endorsed.

I am certain you will make a most qualified and effective Senator.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I present to you my all important endorsement. I am sure you will do well in the senate, although you will be missed in the DS Legislature.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I love all this support! Keep it coming!

Supersonic–I'll answer your question in my next post as a campaign statement. It'll be very similar to my opening statements in the At-Large Senate debate (if not identical). More details will be forthcoming.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Supersonic—here’s a brief outline of what I’d like to pursue in the senate.

—My Priorities as Senator—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

I’m not a bill-writing-extraordinaire, but what I do provide is thoughtful discussion to the legislative process. My forte involves investigating the details of bills and making sure no concern is left unaddressed. A good guiding question is this: Will the provision achieve what it’s been set out to achieve? It’s with this process that I try to be a consensus-builder, not a partisan ideologue.

Still, I consider myself to be a conservative and communitarian. As public servants, it’s our job to fight for the best interests of our communities—to preserve the foundational family unit, to foster pragmatic change when necessary, and to make sure individuals have the freedom to succeed.

In that regard, I think it’s important to strengthen our defenses at home and our diplomacy abroad. I’d also be interested in re-evaluating Atlasia’s foreign aid commitments—our system should prioritize countries with better human rights records, and we need to make sure aid actually gets to the people who need it. Domestically, we ought to be looking at some serious tax breaks for small businesses.

I’ve also considered drafting something of a “Regional Bill of Rights.” Regions should be guaranteed autonomy over certain policy areas like education. A Regional Bill of Rights would clarify these jurisdictions and re-affirm Atlasia’s commitment to regional rights.

Game reform: It doesn’t need to be extensive, but clarifying the role of the game moderator is something the senate should look into. For example, I believe it’s no one but the GM’s duty to dictate the actions of foreign governments. As a diplomat, the SoEA should lobby the GM towards the administration’s foreign policy objectives.

I hope to go into a bit more detail on these objectives over the course of my campaign. For now, I hope this answers your question.

[Supersonic]

Very nice.

[Donerail]

In that regard, I think it’s important to strengthen our defenses at home and our diplomacy abroad. I’d also be interested in re-evaluating Atlasia’s foreign aid commitments—our system should prioritize countries with better human rights records, and we need to make sure aid actually gets to the people who need it. Domestically, we ought to be looking at some serious tax breaks for small businesses.

I’ve also considered drafting something of a “Regional Bill of Rights.” Regions should be guaranteed autonomy over certain policy areas like education. A Regional Bill of Rights would clarify these jurisdictions and re-affirm Atlasia’s commitment to regional rights.

Game reform: It doesn’t need to be extensive, but clarifying the role of the game moderator is something the senate should look into. For example, I believe it’s no one but the GM’s duty to dictate the actions of foreign governments. As a diplomat, the SoEA should lobby the GM towards the administration’s foreign policy objectives.

I actually agree with a lot of what you've proposed. I'd have to see what's in a "Regional Bill of Rights" before giving a final verdict, but I like the sound of it. As for the GM, I agree that the GM should simulate the actions of foreign governments and the SoEA that of the current administration. I'd be interested in doing a comprehensive review of our foreign aid commitments in order to accomplish the aims you specified as well.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Glad to see we're on the same page.

I also echo this statement from your campaign office:

I prefer to focus on issues where I can make progress and get things done rather than taking an ideological stance and wasting everyone's time.

I am very pro-life and I do support traditional marriage, but these are stances that I don't believe Atlasia is ready to embrace. Might as well try to pursue areas of common ground.

And wiggle in those traditional values with a little more subtlety.

[Reaganfan]

I'm proud to throw my support behind Hagrid for strong conservative values!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thanks, Reaganfan!

I urge everyone to check out the debate we're having over in this thread. I'll be releasing many of my responses as official campaign statements. Stay tuned.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

—Stimulating the Atlasian Economy—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

The first thing we’ve got to do is lower taxes across the board. Specifically (but not exclusively), I think it’s morally and economically reprehensible that we are robbing some Atlasians of 50% of their income. The effects of lower taxes would be two-fold: For one, we’d be giving more money back to the citizens to contribute to our economy (which would create jobs and provide the government with more corporate tax revenues); and secondly, our higher-income job-creators would be free to invest more money in business. I could go on and on about the carbon tax, but I’ll leave my opinion on that up to your imagination.

I also think we’ve got to continue sending a clear signal to the world that we are a fiscally responsible nation. In that regard, I think the Saving Over Spending Act is a positive step forward. I understand that spending cuts need to go hand-in-hand with my favoured tax cuts… By eliminating frivolous expenditures like the Atlasian National Broadcaster, I’m confident we’ll be able to sustain lower tax rates. A record of stability will show entrepreneurs that Atlasia is a safe place to do business. Manufacturing jobs can return to this country.

There’s one more thing I want to touch on here: The Corporate Clean Energy Credit. It’s a good idea, and we need to expand on it. Maybe I’ll be departing from my party on this one, but I really think we should be offering tax credits to businesses that market green technologies. These incentives will keep prices down, grow the market, create jobs, and help the environment.