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

[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!

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

Well I take 'help draft' to mean help j/k. Let's see what the final version of this bill is I suppose.

[DownWithTheLeft]

As much as I hate being diplomatic, I accept as friendly

[Purple State]

I think something needs to be done about Section 5. Who is Israel agreeing with about this? What if Hamas says screw it, we refuse to agree to any definition, ensuring that aid is cut to Israel?

[HappyWarrior]

I very much like where this bill's debate is going.  That being towards a compromise I will probably be voting for.  Sorry I am not as involved as I wish I could be.  School, work, and my new gf are consuming my life at the moment.  I am however doing my best to keep everything moving at a steady pace.

[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.

Well I did suggest this last night....don't think it got noticed really because a lot of posts came at that time

Not sure how my fellow senators feel about this.

We could just strike Section 5 and define the Palestinian government ourselves as "Palestinian National Authority".

Or to make sure that Palestine doesn't simply refuse to bargain in order to let Israel lose its money...we could give them a time limit to come up with their own borders...and if they fail to do that within.....let's say 3 months? Half the time limit for the other conditions....then Atlasia is authorized to create its own definition. How about that?

[Јas]

Just a few remarks...

First off kudos to Sens. Franzl and Lief for their work in transmogrifying the bill. Second, I'd second much of what afleitch has said.

I would say though that the new title is presumptive. Very presumptive. (Not that the original title was peachy but anyway...) Whatever this is, it isn't a peace plan, nor is it likely to lead to one.

What the bill does do though is change the nature of the Atlasian relationship with both players, particularly Israel. The loss of that military aid is significant. Under this bill, we could no longer expect to exert the same level of influence over Israel than we can at present. Whether this is a good or bad thing is not easy to answer.

We are though clearly imposing our own view on certain aspects of the disputed matters which ultimately are for the 2 parties to decide themselves, matters much less morally clear than simply demanding the cessation of violence - I'm thinking in particular here of the express acceptance of Israeli West Bank settlements. Why this issue we're imposing our own view on but not other critical issues (the status of Jerusalem, the right of return, water supplies, the border, the wall, etc.) I'm not sure.

The issue of the 'Palestinian Government' remains and is a critical one, given what is expected of the Palestinian Government in the bill. I don't see how both sides will be able to come up with an agreed definition here. There is de facto split control between Fatah and Hamas of the West Bank and Gaza. Neither one can give any commitment as to the actions of the other. Neither one is therefore credible to Israel as a Palestinian Government under the terms of this bill, which requires said Government to inhibit attacks on Israel - a commitment neither Hamas nor Fatah can credibly give or enforce of the other. (And even this simplistic analysis overlooks that Hamas are politically untouchable at this time.)

It seems to me that from a Palestinian perspective, this bill incentivises them to inhibit a deal. Neither Hamas nor Fatah can offer any control over the other's territory - as would be required under this bill, and even if they could, they have to give in to the presence of Israeli West Bank settlements and uncertainty as to other crucial points of dispute (nevermind the return of the small amount of Atlasian aid flows). Whereas in the absence of a deal they can simply not agree to the terms of this bill and see Israel lose $2.5bn in aid (the vast majority of which is in military aid, which has obviously been most likely to be directed against Palestinians in recent years).

[Purple State]

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.

Well I did suggest this last night....don't think it got noticed really because a lot of posts came at that time

Not sure how my fellow senators feel about this.

We could just strike Section 5 and define the Palestinian government ourselves as "Palestinian National Authority".

Or to make sure that Palestine doesn't simply refuse to bargain in order to let Israel lose its money...we could give them a time limit to come up with their own borders...and if they fail to do that within.....let's say 3 months? Half the time limit for the other conditions....then Atlasia is authorized to create its own definition. How about that?

Yeah, there needs to be "at the discretion of the Atlasian Senate" written all over the place here.

[Franzl]

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. Indeed legitimate concerns.

To answer directly to fears that Palestine might intentionally refuse to make a deal in order to allow Israel to lose their share of the funding....I hope we can amend Section 5, as I suggested a couple of hours ago...so that if the respective parties are unable to come up with an agreement within 3 months, that Atlasia will then have the power to determine the borders as we see fit. Not the optimal solution, of course...but something, at least, that should keep the Palestinian side from just trying to trick Israel out of its money. (I don't really see any fairer way...do you?)

That might be a solution to the "definition" problem.

I think we definitely need to implement Afleitch's proposal....regarding giving other Arab nations economic incentives to accept the terms of this act...in the form of free trade agreements, for example. This bill is certainly more likely to be successful if that suggestion is implemented, I think.

The whole thing is a tough subject...and I think there are going to be general problems with every proposal.

Thanks again, and it's good to hear your thoughts.

[Purple State]

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. Indeed legitimate concerns.

To answer directly to fears that Palestine might intentionally refuse to make a deal in order to allow Israel to lose their share of the funding....I hope we can amend Section 5, as I suggested a couple of hours ago...so that if the respective parties are unable to come up with an agreement within 3 months, that Atlasia will then have the power to determine the borders as we see fit. Not the optimal solution, of course...but something, at least, that should keep the Palestinian side from just trying to trick Israel out of its money. (I don't really see any fairer way...do you?)

That might be a solution to the "definition" problem.

I think we definitely need to implement Afleitch's proposal....regarding giving other Arab nations economic incentives to accept the terms of this act...in the form of free trade agreements, for example. This bill is certainly more likely to be successful if that suggestion is implemented, I think.

The whole thing is a tough subject...and I think there are going to be general problems with every proposal.

Thanks again, and it's good to hear your thoughts.

Rather than leaving it up to the Senate to determine borders, how about just cut off funding to whichever side is holding up progress and refuse diplomatic recognition. That's more what I meant in "Senate discretion." It could be that one side thinks they will get a more favorable border decision if they hold out and send it to the Senate. We need to stay as far as possible from these decisions we barely understand. Instead, give the two sides incentive to work together.

[Franzl]

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. Indeed legitimate concerns.

To answer directly to fears that Palestine might intentionally refuse to make a deal in order to allow Israel to lose their share of the funding....I hope we can amend Section 5, as I suggested a couple of hours ago...so that if the respective parties are unable to come up with an agreement within 3 months, that Atlasia will then have the power to determine the borders as we see fit. Not the optimal solution, of course...but something, at least, that should keep the Palestinian side from just trying to trick Israel out of its money. (I don't really see any fairer way...do you?)

That might be a solution to the "definition" problem.

I think we definitely need to implement Afleitch's proposal....regarding giving other Arab nations economic incentives to accept the terms of this act...in the form of free trade agreements, for example. This bill is certainly more likely to be successful if that suggestion is implemented, I think.

The whole thing is a tough subject...and I think there are going to be general problems with every proposal.

Thanks again, and it's good to hear your thoughts.

Rather than leaving it up to the Senate to determine borders, how about just cut off funding to whichever side is holding up progress and refuse diplomatic recognition. That's more what I meant in "Senate discretion." It could be that one side thinks they will get a more favorable border decision if they hold out and send it to the Senate. We need to stay as far as possible from these decisions we barely understand. Instead, give the two sides incentive to work together.

The problem with at is that is isn't easy to determine who is "holding up progress". Both sides are going to have seperate ideas of how to define the Palestinian government, most likely....and where to draw borders and the like. It's not easy to say who is being unreasonable in that process. I think that'd be pretty dangerous to do that.

I personally would hope that the threat of Atlasian intervention in the "defintion process" would motivate both sides (especially Palestine) into reaching an agreement themselves.

[Purple State]

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. Indeed legitimate concerns.

To answer directly to fears that Palestine might intentionally refuse to make a deal in order to allow Israel to lose their share of the funding....I hope we can amend Section 5, as I suggested a couple of hours ago...so that if the respective parties are unable to come up with an agreement within 3 months, that Atlasia will then have the power to determine the borders as we see fit. Not the optimal solution, of course...but something, at least, that should keep the Palestinian side from just trying to trick Israel out of its money. (I don't really see any fairer way...do you?)

That might be a solution to the "definition" problem.

I think we definitely need to implement Afleitch's proposal....regarding giving other Arab nations economic incentives to accept the terms of this act...in the form of free trade agreements, for example. This bill is certainly more likely to be successful if that suggestion is implemented, I think.

The whole thing is a tough subject...and I think there are going to be general problems with every proposal.

Thanks again, and it's good to hear your thoughts.

Rather than leaving it up to the Senate to determine borders, how about just cut off funding to whichever side is holding up progress and refuse diplomatic recognition. That's more what I meant in "Senate discretion." It could be that one side thinks they will get a more favorable border decision if they hold out and send it to the Senate. We need to stay as far as possible from these decisions we barely understand. Instead, give the two sides incentive to work together.

The problem with at is that is isn't easy to determine who is "holding up progress". Both sides are going to have seperate ideas of how to define the Palestinian government, most likely....and where to draw borders and the like. It's not easy to say who is being unreasonable in that process. I think that'd be pretty dangerous to do that.

I personally would hope that the threat of Atlasian intervention in the "defintion process" would motivate both sides (especially Palestine) into reaching an agreement themselves.

Heh, if you think it's hard to determine who is holding up progress, try figuring out a West Bank border. Some of the settlements and towns are so close to each other they literally sit watching each other. Drawing their borders will only antagonize them. One or both sides will refuse to recognize the border, there will be attacks and street riots. Just East Jerusalem alone will really contentious.

We are better off trying to figure out who is blocking compromise.

[Franzl]

We don't even have to define borders down to the inch....the act here only talks about defining the Palestinian government...that doesn't necessarily mean that some amount of territory won't be in dispute.

This, of course...certainly makes it possible...if not likely...that it might result in a military conflict over this matter...and that basically leads to suspension of funding for whichever side attacks the other, although we have definied certain circumstances in which self-defense is acceptable.

I dunno...I'm kind of sceptical of trying to tell one side their demands are illegitimate. I mean sure...we could just do the whole defining ourselves, then, couldn't we? That basically means we're holding the side that demands more than we think they deserve responsible.

[Purple State]

You're going to see a lot of non-violent pushing from Israel on the borders to just take land and assert control. And you will see violent raids from Palestinians, possibly leading to a third Intifada. We can't exert too much energy over the minutia or we risk getting stuck in a war between the two sides, not to mention the failure of what this bill aims to accomplish.

We need to take a hands-on hands-off sort of approach, in which we are involved but not overly so. We need to have the discretion to say these are Palestinian actors that can warrant losing funding, we need the flexibility to cut off aid to only Gaza and continue to the West Bank if needed, and we must be able to determine who Israel is talking to on reconciliation.

How about, if no solution is found between Israel and the Gaza/West Bank sides, we cut off aid to Gaza and let Israel bargain only with the West Bank government. Those two are much more likely to come to an agreement. We need this type of flexibility throughout the bill. Spot removal of funding rather than broad-scale actions. It's a very touchy region and, to use an Obama metaphor our of context, we need a fine scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

[Franzl]

I agree with the principle behind your ideas. My problem is that we're attempting to support a two state solution...Israel and Palestine.

Don't you think that specifically stating that we're willing to work with Gaza or the West Bank independently kind of undermines that effort? Personally, I think we need to either allow them all to work together and establish some kind of agreement...or risk losing our support.


We can find some type of compromise here, to, as well.

How about we do this:

Section 5 is amended to read: 1. 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. Should no mutual agreement exist 4 months after the passing of this bill, the Atlasian Senate reserves the right to define what constitutes the "Palestinian government" and borders between Israel and Palestine.

2. If at any time the Atlasian Senate is convinced that one party is intentionally inpeding progress for reasons other than oustanding legitimate concerns, the Atlasian Senate may, at any during these 4 months, with a two-thirds majority in the Senate, reinstate aid for the innocent party, and block any aid for the guilty party until it is prepared to resume sensible negotiations.

[Purple State]

Okay that is acceptable to me. You can never find a perfect solution for this stuff, but at least we are making the effort.

On a side note, this is why no one has ever managed to fix the problem there. There are no acceptable compromises that really fix the problem.

[Franzl]

Okay that is acceptable to me. You can never find a perfect solution for this stuff, but at least we are making the effort.

On a side note, this is why no one has ever managed to fix the problem there. There are no acceptable compromises that really fix the problem.

Absolutely, sure, there is no real solution

The good thing here is that we can't really f**k anything up in Atlasia

[Franzl]

Will you accept as friendly, DWTL?



My amendments must be getting tiresome!

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes, I like the principal and love the open-endedness

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this is our final version then.

Judging by what people have said....I'd guess we have enough votes, DWTL.

I think we should call a vote.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Alright, I will trust your judgement on this, I gather as well that we have at least 5 senators surely in favor and only one who has expressed the desire to vote against it.

So here it goes...

I call for cloture

[Hash]

The SoEA still has beef with parts of this legislation, but it's generally acceptable.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for the endorsement.

I think it's fair to say that quite a lot of work was invested, and I want to personally thank DWTL for showing willingness to debate and amend. We may disagree on quite a few things....but we're certainly able to work together to reach some common goals, and I'm happy this will likely work out.

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This should be the final draft, with my demands -> conditions amendment applied. I also added in some missing periods.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would prefer to eliminate all sections except for section 1, but I guess I'll vote in favor.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I urge all Senators to vote against this Bill.