Resolution on the Middle East Conflict

[Јas]

At this rate the war will be over by the time this gets passed....

That may well be, but one would respectfully ask what initiatives the executive have taken regarding the conflict?

[Ebowed]

That may well be, but one would respectfully ask what initiatives the executive have taken regarding the conflict?

We filibustered MasterJedi's horrible amendment.

[Јas]

That may well be, but one would respectfully ask what initiatives the executive have taken regarding the conflict?

We filibustered MasterJedi's horrible amendment.

I am, of course, happy to see that amendment fail, but whatever this resolution states when it runs its course, will probably not matter a great deal. It is merely a statement of opinion from the Senate.

The reason I brought the resolution forward was to raise the issue and hopefully to provoke the active involvement of the executive in persuing a constructive and workable solution to the conflict. International involvement is going to be required. I would like to see Atlasia take a role in this, as part of a UN, NATO, GTO or some other multilateral operation.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Recognizing that the security and stability of the Middle East is threatened by the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel,

The Atlasian Senate hereby recognizes that:
1. The terrorist group, Hezbollah, is acting without legitimate cause or grievance and is slaughtering innocent Israeli citizens.
2. It is acting with the tacit support of the Syrian and Iranian governments.

Thus the Atlasian Senate hereby:
1. Condemns Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
2. Condemns Hezbollah for launching rockets from civilian areas, thus making Israel attack civilian areas and causing undue death of Lebanese citizens to protect its own citizens.
3. Gives support for the Israeli government to defend its territories and citizens against Hezballoh attacks.
4. Calls upon Syria and Iran to end their tacit support of Hezballoh.

[MasterJedi]

Aye

That may well be, but one would respectfully ask what initiatives the executive have taken regarding the conflict?

We filibustered MasterJedi's horrible amendment.

You didn't filibuster it Ebowed, you just have a horribly inactive VP, we need to do something about that.

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye

'Hawk'

[ilikeverin]

Nope

[jerusalemcar5]

NAY.

[Јas]

I would like to raise the question of why my amendment, submitted before Jake's has been leapfrogged.

I would also like to propose an amendment to be added to the resolution:

Recognising the profoundly detrimental effect the conflict has had on innocent persons in the region, the Senate calls upon the Atlasian executive to persue active engagement in the conflict with the objective of ending the hostilities there with due haste.

I would also ask whether there is anything more than a semantic difference between Jake's proposed amendment and that of Masterjedi which has just been dealt with. If not, I would ask that it be removed as a frivolous gesture simply designed to stall the Senate's dealing with this matter.

[Jake]

Aye

And I second Jas's question of why his amendment was skipped.

[Ebowed]

That may well be, but one would respectfully ask what initiatives the executive have taken regarding the conflict?

We filibustered MasterJedi's horrible amendment.

You didn't filibuster it Ebowed, you just have a horribly inactive VP, we need to do something about that.

I wasn't being serious, but don't let that stop you from chipping paint a bit more.  He asked what initiatives my branch had taken regarding the conflict, and being a good sport, I acknowledged my lack of action on this subject with a joke about how Q waged a great filibuster just by being inactive.

[MasterJedi]

I would like to raise the question of why my amendment, submitted before Jake's has been leapfrogged.

I would also like to propose an amendment to be added to the resolution:

Recognising the profoundly detrimental effect the conflict has had on innocent persons in the region, the Senate calls upon the Atlasian executive to persue active engagement in the conflict with the objective of ending the hostilities there with due haste.

I would like the apologize, I missed it, that's why I didn't see it. It shall be up next.

[Јas]

I would like the apologize, I missed it, that's why I didn't see it. It shall be up next.

Thanks.

On Jake's amendment: Nay.
I would still ask whether or not their is any real difference between this amendment and the previous one, and would appreciate an explanation to that effect. If noone can come up with such an explanation it would seem to me to be a tacit acceptance that we are, in effect, voting on the same amendment twice with the likely effect of another week long delay.
I thus call once more for such an explanation, or failing that, the removal of the amendment as frivolous.

[WMS]

Aye on Jake's amendment, and let's get to Jas' amendment already.

[Jake]

I would still ask whether or not their is any real difference between this amendment and the previous one, and would appreciate an explanation to that effect. If noone can come up with such an explanation it would seem to me to be a tacit acceptance that we are, in effect, voting on the same amendment twice with the likely effect of another week long delay.
I thus call once more for such an explanation, or failing that, the removal of the amendment as frivolous.

Removing this:

3. Gives wholehearted support to the Israeli government in their attacks against Hezbollah and supports its complete destruction.

In favor of this:

3. Gives support for the Israeli government to defend its territories and citizens against Hezballoh attacks.

And adding this:

4. Calls upon Syria and Iran to end their tacit support of Hezballoh.

Is a significant change.

[Јas]

Removing this:

3. Gives wholehearted support to the Israeli government in their attacks against Hezbollah and supports its complete destruction.

In favor of this:

3. Gives support for the Israeli government to defend its territories and citizens against Hezballoh attacks.

And adding this:

4. Calls upon Syria and Iran to end their tacit support of Hezballoh.

Is a significant change.

On that, we disagree. The suggested alterations seem to be semantic as opposed to a substantive change in position.

[Jake]

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

[Јas]

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?

[Jake]

No, it would no longer be declaring itself in open support of Israel receiving a blank check to destroy Hezballoh.

[WMS]

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.

[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.

[WMS]

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.

[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."

[WMS]

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.

[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.