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

[SPC]

While I don't approve of foreign aid, it's still an improvement.

[afleitch]

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.

[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.

[afleitch]

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.

Given that Palestine is effectively financially supported by the Arab world, recognising Israel as part of the condition (which many other Arab states do not) could risk alienating it's neighbours, trading partners and military backers. As such Palestine has more, financially (and perhaps even 'morally') to loose than gain in this bill.

I wouldn't back it if I was a Palestinian politician, not for such low leves of aid and for such low increases in aid considering much of that 5% increase would be eaten up through the effects of local inflation.

[Franzl]

I see what you mean, Afleitch.

Do you think it would make sense to promise Palestine the same amount of aid that Isreal gets if the terms of this act are met?

$2600 million does sound like a lot of money....but as a percentage of our total budget...it's not really that much.

Maybe we could lower the overall amount in addition to making it equal for both parties....maybe like $2000 million/year for each country, and then by raising it annually by 3% for both sides.

DWTL: I know you were against raising it dramatically for Palestine.....but would you reconsider because of what Afleitch said? I think his worries are legitimate, and that raising the level of aid for Palestine would indeed provide a much bigger motivation to comply and work with Israel and us.

edit: On second thought....maybe not fully equal levels....but maybe like 50% of Israel's level with an equal annual raise every year of 3%? I hadn't noticed that raising Palestinian aid to the same level might anger other countries in the region....and that's surely a legitimate concern.

[afleitch]

Increasing Palestinian aid to $2000 million would see it leapfrog Egypt in terms of aid IIRC. Egypt (and to some extent Jordan - a nation satisfied with Atlasia and British aid) acts as a powerful balance in the region. We have Egypts and Jordans on one side and Syrias and Irans on the other if you will.

Egypt does 'our' job in tackling (with some assistance) internal terrorist threats and recruitment within it's own borders and exists in some form as a functioning democracy with some degree of openness and stability. Much of this is a continuation of the accord reached back in 1980. I would be very wary in upping Palestinian aid considering we have left definition as to what constitutes Palestine up in the air. I wouldn't upset Egypt and Jordan who as nations have to exist side by side with Palestine.

We may completely placate Palestine and do something no one has been able to do. But cut off one head and another may grow.

How can the Senate get around this? A Middle East bill perhaps but it is a difficult issue.

[Lief 🗽]

I second the concerns of Afleitch. Of course, I'm not entirely sure how to deal with them, as again, this is understandably a prickly issue.

Moreover, I feel that the bill should not suspend aid first, and then reinstate it later, especially as much of the aid (and to the Palestinians I would think all of it) is humanitarian aid meant for the people, rather than for the military. A better solution, I think, would be to only suspend aid after some set amount of period, or perhaps to suspend military aid immediately and suspend other forms of financial assistance after some amount of period. I'll draft an amendment in a bit that does this, and we can see if it has any support.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I like the bill for the most part. Section 4 sucks though.

[Lief 🗽]

I propose two amendments, to be on voted on separately:

Amendment 1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment 2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first amendment addresses the concern I raised earlier. The second, because I don't see the point in further increasing aid to Israel. We already give them more than enough, and it's not as if they're hurting from lack of aid.

[Franzl]

I actually support both amendments, Lief.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I support Lief's second amendment.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I accept Lief's amendments as friendly, I thought about possibly shortening the time period, but that is kind of unnecessary

[afleitch]

Perhaps this needs a complimentary bill to adress the 11 'neighbour' nations (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, United Arab Emirates.) who do not recognise the State of Israel. We could offer a trading deal? It would require one heck of a bill but it would tip the scales more in favour of an agreement.

Iran alone is an issue, and Syria and Lebanon as neighbours are sensitive but conditions are more favourable in states like the UAE who are simply posturing.

[Franzl]

Perhaps this needs a complimentary bill to adress the 11 'neighbour' nations (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, United Arab Emirates.) who do not recognise the State of Israel. We could offer a trading deal? It would require one heck of a bill but it would tip the scales more in favour of an agreement.

Iran alone is an issue, and Syria and Lebanon as neighbours are sensitive but conditions are more favourable in states like the UAE who are simply posturing.

Yes...perhaps the speaker could put something like that in the emergency slot? I'll write the bill in a little while.

Meanwhile, I think we should vote for this bill, senators.

[DownWithTheLeft]

As I told you before, I'd like to see what people think of this idea, but personally I kind of against it.  I think we could use this bill as a test run and if our GM says it works, then we could move to countries.

[Franzl]

As I told you before, I'd like to see what people think of this idea, but personally I kind of against it.  I think we could use this bill as a test run and if our GM says it works, then we could move to countries.

that might be appropriate as well.

Do you think we should add anything else to this bill? Or are you ready for a vote?

[DownWithTheLeft]

As I told you before, I'd like to see what people think of this idea, but personally I kind of against it.  I think we could use this bill as a test run and if our GM says it works, then we could move to countries.

that might be appropriate as well.

Do you think we should add anything else to this bill? Or are you ready for a vote?

I'd like to make sure we have enough senators on board before calling this to a vote considering how much work has been put in.  I'd like to wait possibly until tomorrow night to see if any senators have something else to weigh in on.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Section 1:
All non-humanitarian 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.
 c.) 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.

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

3. Failure to meet the following conditions within six months of the passage of this bill will result in full suspension of all aid to Israel.

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.

4. Failure to meet the following conditions within six months of the passage of this bill will result in full suspension of all aid to Palestine

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

Section 5:
1.)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.
2.) No aid will be resumed to either side until a definition is agreed upon.

[Lief 🗽]

Don't Senators have 24 hours to object before my amendments actually apply as friendly amendments?

[Franzl]

As I told you before, I'd like to see what people think of this idea, but personally I kind of against it.  I think we could use this bill as a test run and if our GM says it works, then we could move to countries.

that might be appropriate as well.

Do you think we should add anything else to this bill? Or are you ready for a vote?

I'd like to make sure we have enough senators on board before calling this to a vote considering how much work has been put in.  I'd like to wait possibly until tomorrow night to see if any senators have something else to weigh in on.

OK, that's fine with me.

I do have one more amendment....sorry for being so late:

Section 5 is amended to read: The Israeli government and the Palestinian National Authority 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.


This just being to make perfectly clear who we want to act.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Don't Senators have 24 hours to object before my amendments actually apply as friendly amendments?

Technically, but its not hard to catch the PPT napping

[Franzl]

Don't Senators have 24 hours to object before my amendments actually apply as friendly amendments?

would you rather your amendments be brought to a vote?

[afleitch]

I am aware I have been perhaps too involved perhaps in Senate business here. I will respectfully back out now

I am willing to help draft a Middle East trade (?) Bill if Franzl likes.

Over and out!

[Franzl]

I am aware I have been perhaps too involved perhaps in Senate business here. I will respectfully back out now

I am willing to help draft a Middle East trade (?) Bill if Franzl likes.

Over and out!

If you'd like to, sure.....I'm sure you'd make a really good bill.

I don't mind drafting it, though. But feel free to

[Lief 🗽]

If DWTL accepts it as friendly, that's fine with me. I'm just saying as much in case any Senators want to object to it. Otherwise there's no need to have a vote.

I'd like to offer another amendment, just to make the bill sound a little more diplomatic:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds better this way, I think. DWTL can accept this as friendly if he'd like.