Resolution on the Middle East Conflict

[jerusalemcar5]

Deleting Clause 4 will make us look like a joke.  We need to say that their strikes have been out of line and inappropriate.

[jerusalemcar5]

I struggle with Clause 2 (Jedi version).  Israeli missiles struck civilian areas first, and in response Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel.  Not the other way around.  They certainly did not "force" Israel to kill civilians as Israel acted of its own volition.

Also Clause 3 (Jedi version) gives support to Israel destroying Lebanon's infrastructure and killing Lebanese civilians.  We cannot just blindly support Israel, we must be a mediating force.  Israel has done some terrible things, although they certainly have a much more just cause than Hezbollah, we cannot dismiss what they've done wrong and praise Israel for doing it.

Finally, I will wholeheartedly not be supporting this amendment and am quite pleased with the original, much saner, version written by Senator Jas.

[jerusalemcar5]

NAY.

[jerusalemcar5]

Aye. 

Since MasterJedi changed his amendment by striking Clause IV, I don't see this as giving blind support to Israel.  That accusation would be valid had we actually committed to selling weapons to them.  I see this more as an Atlasian denouncement of Hezbollah as a terrorist group, which just happens to be the same position that Israel takes.

It does not make any statement that condemns disproportionate Israeli killings of innocents and destruction of infrastructure.  It is blind to the fact that Israel is not always in the right and certainly are not here.  That it why it is one of the most overt cases of blind  Israeli  support.

[jerusalemcar5]

From what I see, it looks like we're just stuck.  Also does the VP have the right to break ties on amendments?  I couldn't find the clause, so I'm unsure. 

[jerusalemcar5]

Just in case this goes somewhere...

If Jedi amendment somehow passes: Nay.

If not: Aye.

[jerusalemcar5]

I motion for cloture following the vote on Jake's amendment which will obviously not pass since it still says nothing about Israel's actions that are disproportionate and mostly uncalled for.  This amendment will stall again.  *sigh*

[jerusalemcar5]

NAY.

[jerusalemcar5]

No longer voiceing our "wholehearted support" for Israel's "destruction of Hezballoh" is a fairly substantive change in policy.

Are you thus saying that your amendment would mean that the Senate would be declaring itself neutral with regard to Hezbollah's existence?

I'll tell you right now that if you want the Senate to adopt a neutral stance between Hezbollah and Israel I will definitely oppose that.

No.  Jas was saying Jake's amendment would make us seem neutral towards Hezbollah.  Jas's oirginal resolution favors Israel, but recognize the need to condemn Israel's attacks on civilians.

[jerusalemcar5]

No longer voiceing our "wholehearted support" for Israel's "destruction of Hezballoh" is a fairly substantive change in policy.

Are you thus saying that your amendment would mean that the Senate would be declaring itself neutral with regard to Hezbollah's existence?

I'll tell you right now that if you want the Senate to adopt a neutral stance between Hezbollah and Israel I will definitely oppose that.

No.  Jas was saying Jake's amendment would make us seem neutral towards Hezbollah.  Jas's oirginal resolution favors Israel, but recognize the need to condemn Israel's attacks on civilians.

Accidential attacks on civilians are not the same as deliberate ones...a statement of concern and regret is more appropriate.

Not caring if you hit civilians or not is not the same as "accidental."

[jerusalemcar5]

No longer voiceing our "wholehearted support" for Israel's "destruction of Hezballoh" is a fairly substantive change in policy.

Are you thus saying that your amendment would mean that the Senate would be declaring itself neutral with regard to Hezbollah's existence?

I'll tell you right now that if you want the Senate to adopt a neutral stance between Hezbollah and Israel I will definitely oppose that.

No.  Jas was saying Jake's amendment would make us seem neutral towards Hezbollah.  Jas's oirginal resolution favors Israel, but recognize the need to condemn Israel's attacks on civilians.

Accidential attacks on civilians are not the same as deliberate ones...a statement of concern and regret is more appropriate.

Not caring if you hit civilians or not is not the same as "accidental."

I disagree that that is the Israeli position - they are warning civilians in villages on the target list to leave. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is deliberately targeting civilians.

I am not disagreeing that Hezbollah's attacks are more immoral or that they are targeting civilians.

However the number of dead Israeli civilians and damaged infrastructure and buildiings is negligible compared to Lebanon.  Lebanon does not equal Hezbollah.

Israel warned civilians they were going to be bombed.  And then they bombed.  They didn't wait for evacuations or provide a route for Lebanese to escape.  They didn't care about the Lebanese.

[jerusalemcar5]

Any resolution not offering some kind of condemnation or displeasure with Israel's actions holds no weight.

[jerusalemcar5]

*Sigh*.  Now Ebowed will veto and we won't override.  Horrible amendment.

[jerusalemcar5]

Aye.

[jerusalemcar5]

Nay.

[jerusalemcar5]

Is there a timeframe for someone to change his mind just to open a slot on the senate floor?

They have all seven days I believe.  It won't pass, everyone knows that, so why wait seven days to figure it out?  It'd be nice if those senators on the aye side would change to abstain.

[jerusalemcar5]

So Lebanon as a democratic nation-state has no right to sovereignity and protection against severe air strikes?

The reason its government let it floruish earlier was because it was only a puppet government really headed by Hezbollah supporting Syria.  By the time it transitioned to a real democratic government, it was too late.