Middle East Peace Act of 2009 (On the President's Desk)

[Smid]

The reason why I kept blocking this obsessive idiocy of yours is because you are an anti-semite using this fantasyland bill to get a nasty little thrill. And I don't approve of that.

I don't see how not supporting Israel is antisemitic.

Israel has already withdrawn from Gaza. There are something like 300,000 or so (don't remember the number, but it's about that, give or take a 100,000) Israelis currently living in the West Bank territory. What happens to them?

Well, since most of that land was stolen from their original occupants, that should be transfered back to their original owners, if possible.

"Transferred"? I think what would end up happening, in real life instead of wonderful fantasy where Israel and Palestine happily give in to our demands, is that lots and lots of people would end up killing each other. Getting 8,000 settlers out of Gaza a few years ago was hard enough, but half a million out of the West Bank? Good luck with that.

I know a lot of you want to stop spending money aiding the people of Israel and Palestine, but I'd have a lot more respect for that position if you actually presented a simple "All aid is cut off to both countries forever" bill. It would never pass, of course, but at least you wouldn't be hiding your true intentions. As is, neither Palestine nor Israel will agree to any of this, and this bill will merely back-door your anti-aid/anti-support policies into Atlasian foreign policy.

One could say the same thing about the impossibility of emapcipating 3,000,000 slaves, but that is no reason to not seek abolitionism.

Are you comparing emancipating slaves to kicking Israeli settlers out of their homes?

Well, you phrase it as though they acquired those homes through legitimate means, rather than kicking out the Palestinians that lived there. But, that is irrelevent to this bill, since this had nothing to do with Israeli settlement.

Plenty of terrible things were done to the native americans, too... doesn't mean that all US citizens should pack up and move to Europe.

[Bacon King]

I know I've thus far excluded myself from this thread except for votes. Let me just say, though, that I concur with everything Al has said so far and in general my opinion hasn't changed on this bill since last time when I helped table it.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it appears that this is the current bill.

Here are my problems:

1. I agree that "nation of Israel" needs to be changed to "state of Israel".
2. I think there's a problem with the requirement that "the Palestinian state" suspend attacks. Well, not a problem with it in principle, but I'm not sure how much influence the "state" has on all the attacks. It's not like they have control over everything their people do. It would be unjust to suspend all aid without verifying who's ultimately responsible for attacks.
3. Indeed, I agree with Lief that it is unlikely that Israel withdraws entirely from the West Bank while some of their citizens reside there. I do not believe we can handle this very well, and it's not like we can just force these people to leave. This also shouldn't really affect our aid. Obvious military aggression for that purpose alone is an entirely different matter, of course, and I'd agree if Israel were still in Gaza.

I think we can require both of them to recognize each other. That shouldn't be a problem. Obviously we should encourage that.

[HappyWarrior]

I agree with the points made by Franzl, they are after all quite valid points based on the problems this bill is encountering.

[DownWithTheLeft]

So does someone propose an amendment to rectify these problems which do in my opinion seem minor?  I have no problem to the change to "state of Israel" and motion to add it as friendly

[Franzl]

well I'll just offer this as an alternative bill:

Section 1:
All aid to Israel and Palestine is suspended.

Section 2:
1. Aid to Israel will be reinstated if both of the following demands are fulfilled:
a.) Israel recognizes Palestine as an independent state.
b.) Israel refrains from maintaining any military presence in Gaza. A limited military presence to protect ensure the safety of Israelis residing in the West Bank will be tolerated. The government of Atlasia is given permission to determine exactly what is to be tolerated.

2. Any unprovoked military attacks against Palestine will lead immediately to an indefinite suspension of all aid.

Section 3:
1. Aid to Palestine will be reinstated if both of following demands are fulfilled:
a.) Palestine recognizes Israel's right to exist.
b.) The government of Palestine refrains from encouraging, supporting, or tolerating any attacks against Israel or Israeli citizens.

2. Atlasia recognizes that the government of Palestine cannot control every potential attack and will not impose any sanctions if it is determined that it could not prevent any specific attack from happening. The government of Atlasia is given permission to interpret specific situations.

3. All aid will be suspended indefinitely if it is determined that the government of Palestine is actively supporting attacks against Israel of its citizens.


What do you think?

[Hash]

Which Palestinian government?

[MasterJedi]

The Israeli military isn't going to pull out of the West Bank and leave those settlements to defend themselves.

Well, if they don't, they're not going to receive any money for Atlasian taxpayers.

Well there's still the chance that this will fail or that bgwah will veto if it does pass. And then there's the fact that this crap won't happen irl which is great.

[Franzl]

Which Palestinian government?

well Hamas or Fatah effectively....but I see the problem, and it's something that made me vote against cloture.

How would you word it? Or what would you suggest?

[Јas]

well I'll just offer this as an alternative bill:

Section 1:
All aid to Israel and Palestine is suspended.

Section 2:
1. Aid to Israel will be reinstated if both of the following demands are fulfilled:
a.) Israel recognizes Palestine as an independent state.
b.) Israel refrains from maintaining any military presence in Gaza. A limited military presence to protect ensure the safety of Israelis residing in the West Bank will be tolerated. The government of Atlasia is given permission to determine exactly what is to be tolerated.

2. Any unprovoked military attacks against Palestine will lead immediately to an indefinite suspension of all aid.

Section 3:
1. Aid to Palestine will be reinstated if both of following demands are fulfilled:
a.) Palestine recognizes Israel's right to exist.
b.) The government of Palestine refrains from encouraging, supporting, or tolerating any attacks against Israel or Israeli citizens.

2. Atlasia recognizes that the government of Palestine cannot control every potential attack and will not impose any sanctions if it is determined that it could not prevent any specific attack from happening. The government of Atlasia is given permission to interpret specific situations.

3. All aid will be suspended indefinitely if it is determined that the government of Palestine is actively supporting attacks against Israel of its citizens.


What do you think?

1. This bill seems to implicitly offer Atlasian recognition of an indepenedent Palestinian state and it's 'government'. Is that an intentional act? If so, who/what are we recognising as the Palestinian Government(s)?

2. I think it's also important to note that though Atlasian aid to Israel is very significant; Atlasian aid to the Palestinian side is not and is a fraction of total aid from elsewhere (presuming Atlasian and American aid levels are still at similar levels). Threatening the Palestinians with a loss of aid is not really going to see them jump at our command.

3. The bill demands mutual recognition, but doesn't define just exactly what comprises both states - except that we seem to be okay with at least certain Israeli setllements in the West Bank. Do we propose to define the border?

4. The bill makes no reference to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, something which renders independence a theoretical rather than real construct. If terms are to be imposed on Israel, something should be included on this point?

I may have more points/queries later.

[Franzl]

1. This bill seems to implicitly offer Atlasian recognition of an indepenedent Palestinian state and it's 'government'. Is that an intentional act? If so, who/what are we recognising as the Palestinian Government(s)? It was my intention, yes, but I see the problem with a Palestinian "government".

2. I think it's also important to note that though Atlasian aid to Israel is very significant; Atlasian aid to the Palestinian side is not and is a fraction of total aid from elsewhere (presuming Atlasian and American aid levels are still at similar levels). Threatening the Palestinians with a loss of aid is not really going to see them jump at our command. Good point as well....perhaps we should offer significant aid should our demands be met.

3. The bill demands mutual recognition, but doesn't define just exactly what comprises both states - except that we seem to be okay with at least certain Israeli setllements in the West Bank. Do we propose to define the border? I guess we could get them to agree on a border before we give either one any aid. Don't no really.

4. The bill makes no reference to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, something which renders independence a theoretical rather than real construct. If terms are to be imposed on Israel, something should be included on this point? I agree.

I may have more points/queries later. Your comments are always welcome. Thanks.

It's obviously kind of a hard bill to pass. At this point I'm not sure we should really even continue with it.

[Franzl]

DWTL, are you going to answer to any of this?

I would indeed be interested in your thoughts.

[DownWithTheLeft]

DWTL, are you going to answer to any of this?

I would indeed be interested in your thoughts.

Surely, I didn't know my input was wanted

As far as the concerns posed by Jas:

1.) While there may certainly be fails in the Palestinian government, or what warrants it, we need to give the incentive to someone.  We can't just say "the Palestinian people".  If you wish to work out a different wording I am alright with that, but I think that the "Palestinian government" is the best terminology we are going to get.

2.) I am quite against offering more aid to the Palestinians, I think a major goal of this bill is not only to try and foricbly make peace, but also to try and remove ourselves from this conflict as much as possible.  I don't think our government can afford to raise Palestinian aid to Israeli levels without further bankrupting ourselves.

3.) I say we allow them to agree on the border, but they may ask for help from Atlasia, or others countries/international bodies in drawing them.  We shouldn't be dicating, however, where these borders are going to be.

4.) I agree that the Israeli blockade must end, and we should include that in the bill.
As for your bill...

I am 100% in favor of your bill and accept it as friendly, however, I think we could add a clause dealing with the blockade.

Frankly, at this point something besides a pointless international measure must be done.  Your revised bill would allow us to stay neutral while at the same time putting pressure on both countries to arrive at a decision themselves.

[Franzl]

Yes, something about the blockade does indeed need to be done.

While I certainly agree that we can't really afford to dramatically increase aid to the Palestinians...Jas's point is that there might not be sufficient motivation for them to agree to peace if they don't see some financial incentive. I think it might be in order to offer them some increased aid....

Personally, in all fairness, in theory, the aid levels shouldn't be different at all. (Or actually, in theory, we shouldn't be providing aid to either side.) But yeah....not sure exactly what to do here.

Here's another amendment for the blockade business.....I've still got to think about the other part. (Hope you're not getting tired of my amendments )


Gaza blockade amendment:

Israel will end the blockade on Gaza in order to continue receiving aid.
Atlasia does, however, recognize that Israel should be able to defend itself in the event of Palestinian aggression, therefore:

Should Atlasia determine that the Palestinan government is responsible for supporting attacks against Israel or its citizens as described in Section 3, Israel may reinstate a military blockade with Atlasian approval for a limited amount of time until it is deemed by Atlasia to no longer be necessary for the safety of Israel and its citizens, without loss of aid or other negative consequences.


The same problem arises here with the defintion of the "Palestinian government", but I'm not sure what to do about that right now.

And I still think we need to consider giving Palestine a greater motivation to cooperate, possibly by increasing aid, but we can still discuss that.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I accept the amendment as friendly and ask that it is appropriatley added as Section 2, Clause 1C.

I will also put forth the following amendment to be labeled as Section 4:
If Palestine meets said demands, their aid will be increased 5% each year beginning January 1st following the year they met said demands.  If Israel meets said demands, seeing as their aid is already much higher, they shall be given a 2% increase in aid each year.

[Franzl]

I can live with that amendment as well. That's ok.

Now we just need to think about the Palestinian "government" bit. Acutally, I think you're probably right that there is no more accurate way to describe it.

We can interpret it to mean the ruling authority in Gaza and the West Bank, I guess. It's not a very easy topic.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I can live with that amendment as well. That's ok.

Now we just need to think about the Palestinian "government" bit. Acutally, I think you're probably right that there is no more accurate way to describe it.

We can interpret it to mean the ruling authority in Gaza and the West Bank, I guess. It's not a very easy topic.

What about an amendment saying that the Israelis and Palestinians must agree on what constitutes the Palestinian government?  The Israelis will be eager to get their funds back, so they probably will be more than willing to agree to recognizing some form of Palestinian government.  I think the less we define the terms of this agreement and the more we leave it up to them, the better.

[Franzl]

I can live with that amendment as well. That's ok.

Now we just need to think about the Palestinian "government" bit. Acutally, I think you're probably right that there is no more accurate way to describe it.

We can interpret it to mean the ruling authority in Gaza and the West Bank, I guess. It's not a very easy topic.

What about an amendment saying that the Israelis and Palestinians must agree on what constitutes the Palestinian government?  The Israelis will be eager to get their funds back, so they probably will be more than willing to agree to recognizing some form of Palestinian government.  I think the less we define the terms of this agreement and the more we leave it up to them, the better.

ok, that's a good idea actually.

We can add a new section for that, I think. How about:


Section 5:

Both sides will agree upon a defintion of the "Palestinian government" for purposes of complying with this act. Thie definition will be used in determining eligibility for aid based on the requirements and restrictions outlined in previous sections.

No aid will be resumed to either side until a definition is agreed upon.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I accept as friendly.

Any other questions/comments?  I think that if none arise by the end of the weekend we should think about moving toward a final vote.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just for general reference for all senators....this version that has been agreed upon as of right now.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Tremendous, I must say if this bill is passed it shows a lot about this senate and is a sign of great things to come.

[Franzl]

Oh, one thing I did forget. We should change the name of this to make it neutral.

What do you think of "Middle East Peace Act of 2009"?

Other than that, I think I'm satisfied with our compromise.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Sure, I would fine with the name change.  As much as the name has been near and dear to me since the first time Ebowed introduced this bill, I do not want such a thing to hold up the vote.  I would like to know, however, before we open a vote where other senators stand.  2 isn't enough to pass a bill

[Franzl]

Sure, I would fine with the name change.  As much as the name has been near and dear to me since the first time Ebowed introduced this bill, I do not want such a thing to hold up the vote.  I would like to know, however, before we open a vote where other senators stand.  2 isn't enough to pass a bill

I think there may be some trouble passing this for a number of reasons.

The thing is, I greatly respect Al and Jas and their concerns about this, and I'm most certainly not "anti-Israel" in the sense you are, DWTL

I do, however, believe that we as a nation must start to become more neutral to the whole conflict. Encouraging peace is definitely something that should be done...and until certain demands are met, I don't see why we should continue funding either side until certain steps are taken to ensure longer lasting peace.

I realize that it's perfectly possible that this will do nothing to advance the cause of peace....and it's perfectly possible that none of these demands will be met.....and it's not something I like....but I don't think we should continue actively supporting the whole problem with aid under those circumstances.

I truly am neutral in this conflict, and I don't really have anything against Israel, but they need to do a lot more for peace, and that includes a "2 state solution" and recognition of the Palestinians as equals.


I don't know whether this has enough support to pass....but we'll see.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I feel confident that we have worked a compromise that makes us neutral in the conflict and allows maximum fleixble for the two sides to work out the differences on their own.

I hope that any senator with a qualm about the bill raises it now.