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

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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?

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

I accept SPC's amendment as friendly.  I think the action is fair and appropriate and certainly a well thought of compromise.

If this bill passes I would like to offer it up as a toast to this senate being one of compromise of getting things done.  I really appreciate the efforts to compromise on this bill rather than allowing a few senators sharp boos to overshadow what needs to be done.  I always applaud taking action over pointless statements.

I agree that action is necessary, and I believe that requiring a withdrawl of troops is a necessary demand in order to continue funding.

I do, however, believe Smid has a point that it would not be all that motivating if Israel is told that the funding will only continue if the Atlasian Senate will approve of it after they withdraw all their troops.

Therefore, I must humbly suggest that the amendment be changed to:

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.

[Franzl]

Aye

[Franzl]

A voice from the gallery: once again, note "nation of Israel". I mean, seriously Senators. You can't seriously be this blind (of course, the dolt can't even spell "aid" so maybe it slightly more innocent than it looks). And someone should also remind you all that there is no one, single Palestinian government these days...

Perhaps one needs to look no further than this statement to see why this bill is working.  The problem was never me, it was always you.  Now, we have a group of senators who are willing to work out a compromise.

Well done everyone

Haha.

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.

Another reason, of course, was that your bill was always badly written and based on a combination of delusions and out-of-date information.

And this bill, as it stands now, remains badly written (you can't even spell "aid" correctly, you idiot). And it remains based on delusions and out-of-date information. It's pure student-hack politics.

And this is before we reach the issue of using aid as a weapon.

could you explain what the problem is with "nation of Israel"?  Haven't quite understood what you meant.

[Franzl]

Abstain on cloture

[Franzl]

I'm growing worried about the wording of this, and the fact the Palestinians have no unified government is also something that needs to be considered.

I'd like to debate this some more.

I'm changing my vote on cloture to NAY.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Franzl]

Considering we give non military aid of only $85 million a year to Palestine yet give non miltary aid of $2600 million to Israel (average of past few years using avaliable figures) on the issue of aid we are not really comparing like with like (considering Palestinian aid is under 4% of that given to Israel.)

Israel looses almost exponentially more than Palestine if aid is halted and no compromise is reached (particularly if you look at the aid-trade ratio for Israel)

This is a neutral bill in conditions, but not in effect.

That's true enough, although I think that Palestine also has things to gain that aren't directly connected to money, namely, recognition of them as a sovereign state by Israel and Atlasia. That should be one of their greatest goals.

Israel on the other hand does stand more to lose, I agree, but that does seem fair to me considering they are currently at a much higher position (unfairly, I might even suggest).

I really hope that both sides are willing to cooperate.