The FPR, Round 2 (Passed)

[Sbane]

I object to Tmth's amendment.

Israel needs to stop building settlements or it gets nothing. This is not a debate we are having here. Settlements need to stop, no ands, ifs or buts. The debate should be over what the ultimate border would be between Israel and a future Palestinian nation. BK can negotiate that with Israel, not whether settlement building needs to be stopped. That is a non-issue as far as I am concerned.

[Sbane]

Nay

[Sbane]

I object.

I concur. Restrictions should only be lifted if Israel is serious about the peace process and is willing to meet the Palestinians half way. The President and the DoEA can decide when that has happened.

[Sbane]

Nay

[Sbane]

I think we need to remember here that the current policy is actually quite moderate- we're not talking about economic sanctions, which would actually harm Israeli citizens, instead, all we're talking about is stopping Israel buying even more weapons from us. Considering that Israel has broken numerous international laws, and has a dodgy record on human rights, that, if anything seems to lenient.

Seriously. If this was an arab nation doing it, we would have had sanction on them already.

[Sbane]

BTW, I will not be voting for this FPR if the amendment passes. It is way too lenient. I don't have problem with dialogue (and it's not as if the original version discourages that), BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE FULL MILITARY RESTRICTIONS UNTIL ISRAEL STOPS BUILDING SETTLEMENTS.

[Sbane]

.It seems to me that the president is not forced in to letting arms be sold if Israel only stops settlement building ("may") and this amendment gives us more options in trying to get a solution. On balance, Aye.

Partial military restriction do mean that some arms will be sold to Israel even without them complying with stopping settlements. The original version presented to the Senate had full military restrictions. This amendment is not about dialogue, it is about loosening the restrictions on Israel. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks!

[Sbane]

.It seems to me that the president is not forced in to letting arms be sold if Israel only stops settlement building ("may") and this amendment gives us more options in trying to get a solution. On balance, Aye.

Partial military restriction do mean that some arms will be sold to Israel even without them complying with stopping settlements. The original version presented to the Senate had full military restrictions. This amendment is not about dialogue, it is about loosening the restrictions on Israel. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks!

Yes, and you will get that most likely. Unless you secretly believe that Nix is secretly Joe Lieberman.

And doesi t really matter at the end of the day whether or not the Senate inputs Full or not, as long as the results are attain in the end? Seriously, if Nix issues Full Military and threatens economic, do you really think the Israelis would not come to table? As horrible as they may seem, they are not North Korea and depend the at least some degree of support in the West, or the guarrantee of such as a means to better facilitate their own sense of security.

We have played softball with Israel for a long time now and the results are as plain as day. Israel doesn't care what we think and does whatever it wants, impinging on the sovereignty of Palestinians and stealing their land day after day, month after month and year after year. It is time to play hardball. If the Israelis don't want to negotiate, that is their problem. They will face the consequences of that, not us. We have been nice for decades. It is time to get tough! Nothing less of full military restrictions until they stop settlements is acceptable to me, and hopefully the rest of my colleagues.

[Sbane]

A President threatening economic sanctions on an ally, is not hardball?

I don't see anything about economic sanctions in your amendment.

[Sbane]

I would rather there be only military sanctions, not economic. Perhaps I am biased though, since I am on the science side and Israeli scientists are actually a very valuable resource for the world.

[Sbane]

A President threatening economic sanctions on an ally, is not hardball?

I don't see anything about economic sanctions in your amendment.

The last sentence gives the administration the authority to up it to "full restrictions" without specifying a limit to military. It is thus an authortization to do so on both, as long as it is within the specific parameters, which are basically that such is a practical means to attain the desired objectives stated.

In any case I don't really want restrictions on the economic relations due to my own biases. I do want a full military restriction unless Israel changes their ways, so I am still very opposed to the amendment.

[Sbane]

Aye

[Sbane]

Come on guys....we have to play Texas hold'em.

[Sbane]

Why is it so important that we slap down restrictions before even sitting down and talking to Israel? I've asked this multiple times to no avail.

The world has asked them to stop settlements but since there were no consequences attached to that, settlements have continued unabated. Anyways, this FPR will serve as the talks since we are not negotiating on the matter. Perhaps we should give them a little time to comply which is why Bore's amendment is intriguing to me.

[Sbane]

Abstain

[Sbane]

I think I could vote for this but I am still skeptical whether full sanctions will ever go into place.

[Sbane]

The result or the instrument?

Huh?

I just don't know whether the SoEA will follow up on this and whether the Senate will impose the sanctions in December or January or whenever the deadline was. I won't be here to regulate it. Hopefully TNF continues his good work then and makes sure we hold them accountable.

[Sbane]

Flawed but Aye