The FPR, Round 2 (Passed)

[bore]

.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.

[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!

[Maxwell]

All options should be on the table. I think bore and I are on the exact same place.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

.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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

.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!

The original text is not law or whatever. I beleive the previous FPR is the current standing set of relations or whatever. This is not about loosening restrictions on Israel for the simple reason that this present text does not represent our current realtions until it is law, and because it simply lets the administration make the determination on the use of higher or lower sanctions on either aspect, based on the lay of thel and and the likelihood that such designations will best attain the stated goals of the FPR regarding Israel. As I said before, if you want to change the stated goals, which also serves as a justification for said actions taken, then pray do so.

[TNF]

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.

I agree and will stand with Senator Sbane against anything less than full military restrictions on Israel.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[TNF]

Proposing an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

I strongly object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Typically in diplomacy you never punch someone in the face unless you trying attain something worthwhile from doing so and typically the pleasure of having punched them in the face isn't to be listed amongst them. It is like poking a sleeping bear, or perhaps better yet, a bomb.

Seriously, where the hell is the dynamism? The GM team should be simulating reactiosn to this sh**t and with some degree of realism, which is why my amendment is the most practical and likely to achieve the desired results. It seems that people don't want to achieve the stated results or any results in this thread, they just want to punch someone in the face. That is brilliant means by which to find yourself in a war and I can bet your life that the likes of you guys will be counted as the most fervent of hawks when it happens, not.

[Sbane]

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

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

[bore]

I'm not going to change my vote, but if the current amendment passes I'm going to propose another one which sets a timetable and makes crystal clear that we'd be talking economic sanctions as well.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye. Sorry for the delay. I thought I had already voted

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This vote ends tomorrow by the way.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 57:21 by NC Yankee

Aye (5): bore, Maxwell, NC Yankee, TJ in Cleve and Tmthforu94
Nay (3): Gass3268, sbane and TNF
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): Napoleon and Xahar

With five votes in the affirmative and only three in the negative with time having expired, the amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponor Feedback: None Given
Status: Objective filed by Senator Tmthforu94. A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY


You would think his name was President Αverroës Bush or something.

[Sbane]

Aye

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay