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

[HappyWarrior]

Free Palestine Bill

Section 1: Immoral Practices
1. The Republic of Atlasia condemns the practice of some Palestinians to cause harm to innocent Israeli citizens
2. The Republic of Atlasia deplores the nation of Israel for using curfews, walls, and other freedom-restricting measures on the Palestinian people.

Section 2: Recognition of Palestine and Israel
3. The Republic of Atlasia hereby recognizes the nation of Palestine as being made up by Gaza Strip and West Bank upon the above terms being met by top Palestinian officials.
4. The Republic of Atlasia hereby calls upon the United Nations, and more specifically Israel, to recognize Palestine after the said conditions are met.

Section 3: Ceasefire
1. The two independent nations shall agree to a ceasefire lasting no fewer than two (2) years

Section 4: Failure to Comply
1. If the said conditions are met and Israel still does not recognize Palestine, the Republic of Atlasia will hereby withhold 70% of military aid to Israel and 5% more aid will be witheld for every month Israel does not recognize Palestine.
2. If the Palestinians fail to end government sanctioned violence against the Israeli people, they shall not receive any financial aide.

Section 5: Neutrality
1. Atlasia agrees to remain neutral in conflict between Israel and Iran if Palestinians meet their terms of the agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Sponser: DWTL

[I left.]

Funny actually, as I suspected any bill titled "Free Palestine" to be blatantly unfair and impossible to support, but after having read it, I must say that I agree with most of it.

I'm kind of worried about mandating a ceasefire for only 2 years, as in Section 3.

I'm completely opposed to Section 5. That doesn't mean I oppose neutrality in principle, but that would depend greatly on the circumstances that lead to any conflict between Israel and Iran. There are cases in which I would support involvement...and some in which I would support neutrality.

If we address these issues, DWTL, I feel confident we can work together to pass this legislation.

[HappyWarrior]

Funny actually, as I suspected any bill titled "Free Palestine" to be blatantly unfair and impossible to support, but after having read it, I must say that I agree with most of it.

I'm kind of worried about mandating a ceasefire for only 2 years, as in Section 3.

I'm completely opposed to Section 5. That doesn't mean I oppose neutrality in principle, but that would depend greatly on the circumstances that lead to any conflict between Israel and Iran. There are cases in which I would support involvement...and some in which I would support neutrality.

If we address these issues, DWTL, I feel confident we can work together to pass this legislation.

I agree wholeheartedly with Franzl.  If these problems are worked out I can freely see myself supporting this measure.

[realisticidealist]

I actually approve of Section 5. I think we must maintain as much neutrality as possible. Atlasia does not need to be involved in foreign wars between arbitrary outside nations that cripple our budget and threaten our safety. I would strongly disapprove of any changes to Section 5, except for very specific terms that require Atlasia to remain militarily neutral, though such involvement through the UN could be acceptable.

I am a bit uneasy with Section 4, though, as I don't think we should be giving Israel aid in the first place on principle.

[MasterJedi]

We should continue to support Israel as we have in the past and keep only giving medical and food supplies to the Palestineans and nothing else.

In the end I won't support this bill because it won't work. Either way it screws up the whole situation because the Palestineans will never comply as always which will lead Israel to defend itself and nothing to happen of the process which is actually what I think DWTL wants, no money to either side and to just get out of the conflict which I can't support.

[I left.]

We should continue to support Israel as we have in the past and keep only giving medical and food supplies to the Palestineans and nothing else.

In the end I won't support this bill because it won't work. Either way it screws up the whole situation because the Palestineans will never comply as always which will lead Israel to defend itself and nothing to happen of the process which is actually what I think DWTL wants, no money to either side and to just get out of the conflict which I can't support.

That might be DWTL's intention..but why should we be funding a country that doesn't want peace? I think setting these requirements provides Israel with a reason to cooperate, "or else".

I don't oppose Israel on principle, but they need to do their part, and we shouldn't support them blindly because they're Israel.

[MasterJedi]

We should continue to support Israel as we have in the past and keep only giving medical and food supplies to the Palestineans and nothing else.

In the end I won't support this bill because it won't work. Either way it screws up the whole situation because the Palestineans will never comply as always which will lead Israel to defend itself and nothing to happen of the process which is actually what I think DWTL wants, no money to either side and to just get out of the conflict which I can't support.

That might be DWTL's intention..but why should we be funding a country that doesn't want peace? I think setting these requirements provides Israel with a reason to cooperate, "or else".

I don't oppose Israel on principle, but they need to do their part, and we shouldn't support them blindly because they're Israel.

Kinda hard to support peace when the other side keeps breaking every cease fire that has been made.

[I left.]

We should continue to support Israel as we have in the past and keep only giving medical and food supplies to the Palestineans and nothing else.

In the end I won't support this bill because it won't work. Either way it screws up the whole situation because the Palestineans will never comply as always which will lead Israel to defend itself and nothing to happen of the process which is actually what I think DWTL wants, no money to either side and to just get out of the conflict which I can't support.

That might be DWTL's intention..but why should we be funding a country that doesn't want peace? I think setting these requirements provides Israel with a reason to cooperate, "or else".

I don't oppose Israel on principle, but they need to do their part, and we shouldn't support them blindly because they're Israel.

Kinda hard to support peace when the other side keeps breaking every cease fire that has been made.

This act doesn't prevent us from helping Israel further in the event that the Palestineans don't abide by the peace treaty...as far as I can tell.

We definitely need to get rid of section 5, though.

[Lief]

I'm strongly opposed to passing bills unilaterally ordering other countries to do this and that or else we'll stop financially supporting them. If we care about peace, then we should work with the Palestinians and the Israelis, not dictate terms to them.

And section 5 is horrible.

[I left.]

I'm strongly opposed to passing bills unilaterally ordering other countries to do this and that or else we'll stop financially supporting them. If we care about peace, then we should work with the Palestinians and the Israelis, not dictate terms to them.

And section 5 is horrible.

Doesn't it seem, though, that by financially supporting foriegn countries, that we're entitled to have reasonable demands as to the circumstances under which we'll continue this funding?

[realisticidealist]

I'm strongly opposed to passing bills unilaterally ordering other countries to do this and that or else we'll stop financially supporting them. If we care about peace, then we should work with the Palestinians and the Israelis, not dictate terms to them.

And section 5 is horrible.

Doesn't it seem, though, that by financially supporting foriegn countries, that we're entitled to have reasonable demands as to the circumstances under which we'll continue this funding?

We shouldn't be funding them in the first place.

[I left.]

I'm strongly opposed to passing bills unilaterally ordering other countries to do this and that or else we'll stop financially supporting them. If we care about peace, then we should work with the Palestinians and the Israelis, not dictate terms to them.

And section 5 is horrible.

Doesn't it seem, though, that by financially supporting foriegn countries, that we're entitled to have reasonable demands as to the circumstances under which we'll continue this funding?

We shouldn't be funding them in the first place.

well, yeah, I agree on that, but assuming that we do fund them, I think we have the right to dictate certain policy.

[Sibboleth]

A voice from the gallery would like to point out one of Ernie Bevin's rules about supporting particular motions or policies; always note who's proposing anything (and consider why) before deciding whether to support or oppose it.

[Lief]

Franzl,

To a degree, yes, and there's certainly room for condemnations and the like on both sides. But essentially ordering them to redraw their territory at our whim, and basically immediately at that, without even consulting them, first, much less negotiating with the two countries, is way too much.

This bill is not going to build lasting peace; you don't build lasting peace through threats and blackmail. What it will build is resentment, both at Atlasia and further between the two countries.

[realisticidealist]

This bill is not going to build lasting peace; you don't build lasting peace through threats and blackmail. What it will build is resentment, both at Atlasia and further between the two countries.

I agree with this. The international community created this problem, and they should be the ones to deal with it. The principle is good; I believe Palestine should have its own state, but we are not the ones to do it.

Additionally, I honestly don't think it would even work if we passed it. It does not contain an actual, plausible incentive that hasn't been tried before. Passing an unenforcable sentiment is an exercise of futility.

[I left.]

Franzl,

To a degree, yes, and there's certainly room for condemnations and the like on both sides. But essentially ordering them to redraw their territory at our whim, and basically immediately at that, without even consulting them, first, much less negotiating with the two countries, is way too much.

This bill is not going to build lasting peace; you don't build lasting peace through threats and blackmail. What it will build is resentment, both at Atlasia and further between the two countries.

That's a convincing statement, and I suppose I hadn't considered that implication.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Does anyone have any particular amendments to introduce?  I am willing to amend the bills to achieve the necessary votes for this bill.  It is important that we actually do something and these countries no they cannot count on the US as an ally if they do not wish to move toward peace.

Obviously I would, as it appears Sen. RealisticIdealist would, like to cut off all aid to Israel, but I understand a bill like this is not going to get past the senate.

[Senator Ben]

Naturally, I urge all Senators to reject this legislation, in its entirety.

[I left.]

Naturally, I urge all Senators to reject this legislation, in its entirety.

I was waiting for this.

Care to explain why all of it is bad?

Lief certainly has a point, but you've probably got different reasons.

[SPC]

Here's an amendment, offered as friendly:

Section 1 All aid to the nation of Israel shall be suspended until the withdrawal of all Israeli military from West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Section 2 If the nation of Israel withdraws from West bank and Gaza Strip, aid to the nation shall be recontinued if a majority of the Atlasian Senate approves.

[I left.]

Here's an amendment, offered as friendly:

Section 1 All aid to the nation of Israel shall be suspended until the withdrawal of all Israeli military from West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Section 2 If the nation of Israel withdraws from West bank and Gaza Strip, aid to the nation shall be recontinued if a majority of the Atlasian Senate approves.

I'd support that if combined with the elimination of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the original bill.

[MasterJedi]

I won't support SPC's amendment at all. But either way lets make it fair and suspend all aid to the Palestineans as well as Israel as long as there are any attacks.

[HappyWarrior]

Here's an amendment, offered as friendly:

Section 1 All aid to the nation of Israel shall be suspended until the withdrawal of all Israeli military from West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Section 2 If the nation of Israel withdraws from West bank and Gaza Strip, aid to the nation shall be recontinued if a majority of the Atlasian Senate approves.

I would accept this amendment with MasterJedi's provision included.

[Smid]

I won't support SPC's amendment at all. But either way lets make it fair and suspend all aid to the Palestineans as well as Israel as long as there are any attacks.

Saying that we will withdraw aid until certain conditions are met and then only at the Senate's support would I think fail to convince Israel of withdrawing its defence forces. There is no guarantee of future aid, so there would be no reason for them to follow through on the mere hope that perhaps the Senate might vote at some time in the future to restore aid.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I support this. The oppression of the Palestinian people ought come to an end.