A question about the recent votes on the UNSC.

[Oerdin]

Recently the US vetoed a UNSC bill, put forth by Syria, which would have solely blamed Israel for the recent mid-east violence and would have condemned Israel for threatening to kill or excile Yasser Arafat. The US said that it vetoed the Syrian bill due to the language which blamed Israel for the current mid-east violence but a total of 11 Security Council members voted for the Syrian bill. The final vote was 11 for, 1 against, and 3 abstaining. The abstaining powers were Britain, Bulgari, and Germany.

I can understand why Britain would abstain since it is a close American ally and I can understand by Bulgaria would want to work to improve relations with the US but why did Germany abstain? Blaming Israel solely for the violence and condemning Isreal for their recent vote to marginalize Arafat seems like a slam dunk for a contential power. The only thing I can think of is that the German government is still afraid of being called anti-semetic Nazis if they act out to strongly against Israel. What do you folks think? Was the Us right to veto and why would Germany abstain?

[PLATO]

Germany abstains in most votes against Israel due to not wanting to be seen as anti Jewish in any shape or form

[Nubclear]

Lies. All lies. The US would never use it's veto. Only the French do that.

Stop reading Pravda, Oerdin

[DAVOUT]

As another vote on Israel was sure to be vetoed by the US, all other members made a vote of convenience. And for Germany it was perfectly convenient to cast the same vote as the best ally of the US. Again an example of the role sharing between Germany and France.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Was the Us right to veto and why would Germany abstain?

It is a key component of German policy after WWII to maintain a "special relationship" towards Israel, because we think we have a certain responsibility here due to 33-45. Despite some irritations over criticsim here and there this hasn´t changed and I don´t see that it will change anytime soon. Every government so far has acknowledged this responsibility, a fundamental shift into a position where we go only with one side (=the Arab side) in this conflict will not happen.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Oerdin
but why did Germany abstain? Blaming Israel solely for the violence and condemning Isreal for their recent vote to marginalize Arafat seems like a slam dunk for a contential power. The only thing I can think of is that the German government is still afraid of being called anti-semetic Nazis if they act out to strongly against Israel.

Got it in 1.

[rah]

I personally find it amusing that 11 countries believe Isreal is solely to blame for the recent violence in the middle east. And we wonder why Isreal acts a little paranoid every now and then.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
As another vote on Israel was sure to be vetoed by the US, all other members made a vote of convenience.

If Syria had dropped the part about blaming Israelo alone for the Mideast violence, we might have actually voted for it considering the fact that we have been publically condemning Israel for threatening to kill Arafat.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Blaming Israel solely for the violence and condemning Isreal for their recent vote to marginalize Arafat seems like a slam dunk for a contential power. The only thing I can think of is that the German government is still afraid of being called anti-semetic Nazis if they act out to strongly against Israel. What do you folks think? Was the Us right to veto and why would Germany abstain?

Maybe the German government honestly believes that the resolution was one-sided? Germany does NOT, as a general rule, adhere to the French line on the middle east. For example, Germany was a supporter of banning the "civilian" wing of Hamas in Europe, which France at first opposed, and then watered down.

It is a mistake, I think to put Germany in the same category as France due to the Iraq dispute. Whether German support for France was sincere, was based on domestic politics, or was based on intra-EU maneuvering (and I suspect all 3 are true to some degree) Germany does not follow an identical geopolitical strategy as does France.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If Syria had dropped the part about blaming Israelo alone for the Mideast violence, we might have actually voted for it considering the fact that we have been publically condemning Israel for threatening to kill Arafat.

But the resolution didnt just warn them not to kill him, but not to expel him. I doubt very much that there arent SOME circumstances under which the administration would support expelling him. Its convenient to insist on a condemnation of Hamas, since we know the UNSC is not likely to pass that.

[GePap]

The US opposes his exile, as well. I agree with DD that if a condemnation of the militants had been put in, the US would have voted yes, or as likely abstained.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The US opposes his exile, as well.

under current circumstances, the US views it as "unhelpful". That would seem to imply that at some point it might be ''helpful".

[Rogan Josh]

What do you think would happen if Israel killed Arafat? Huge intafada x10 or 'just' increased terrorist attacks or what?

[Oerdin]

Of course they already have that huge intifada and how long could the Palestinians keep up an increased op-tempo? My guess is Hamas and IJ are already working flat out to produce terror attacks so there is little down side. The biggest upside is that in a year or two there might be a new Palestinian leadership which doesn't sponsor terrorism and which might actually be interesting in making peace.

[lord of the mark]

to follow up on what circumstance would make removing arafat "helpful"

I think the US view is that Arafat is the principle obstacle, but that Sharons limited concessions to Abbas at the very minimum made it difficult to make the case against Arafat. The US knows that permission to expel Arafat is the big prize Israel wants - Sharons action during the Abbas period were not sufficient to "earn" the prize, or to give the US cover when Arafat is expelled. I think the US strategy for Abu Ala is to have the Israelis take stronger steps on outposts, the route of the security fence, roadblocks, etc. But in order to get Israel to agree, to promise Israel that if Arafat sabotages the situation anyway, that he can be expelled.

[Oerdin]

An interesting theory. It might even be true.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Blaming Israel solely for the violence and condemning Isreal for their recent vote to marginalize Arafat seems like a slam dunk for a contential power.

Have you started to believe your own proaganda?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...iddle&Cr1=east

The resolution expressed full support for the Quartet's efforts and "calls for increased efforts to ensure the implementation of the Road Map by the two sides."

German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said his country's abstention did not mean that it had changed its opposition to the expulsion of Mr. Arafat and he called on Israel to revoke its decision. United Kingdom Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said his country considered the text of the resolution as insufficiently balanced and therefore unhelpful in implementing the Road Map but he urged Israel not to misunderstand the international rejection of its decision in principle to remove Mr. Arafat.

And btw:

Ich spüre Ihre freundschaftliche Haltung zu Israel und Ihre aufrichtige Sorge um die Sicherheit und das Wohlergehen des jüdischen Staates. Seit dem historischen Treffen zwischen David Ben-Gurion und Bundeskanzler Konrad Adenauer im Waldorf Astoria
Hotel in New York, das 15 Jahre nach Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges stattfand, haben sich stabile und freundschaftliche Beziehungen zwischen Israel und Deutschland entwickelt, die sich immer weiter vertiefen.

From a speech by Moshe Katsav in Germany, December 2002.
http://berlin.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Data/16577.pdf

Maybe you're just blinded by your rabid likudnik bias.

[Bereta_Eder]

what i understood is:

israel: we're gonna kill arafati if we want to

UN: are you ****ing nuts?


US: objection!

[Sirotnikov]

while I agree that germany has a special relationship with Israel, I don't think it is what made them abstain. I think they do realize that Israel is not to blame for the whole escalation.

Bulgaria and Britain seem to agree.

The other countries worried that if they abstain, Israel would see at as a green light to expel Arafat.

The US simply didn't want yet another UN bashing of Israel.


And as far as Arafat goes - when he is removed in a months time - nothing special will happen. I'm almost sure that two weeks later, the whole Palestinain government will be back to bussiness.

There is a small chance for civil war, but I think it's unlikely. And in any such case, the EU, US and Israel will do everything to make sure that the reasonable PA leaders come out victorious, and very shortly. Otherwise known as "open Hamas hunting season".

[Nubclear]

Yeah. Last time you made him an irrelevant leader....

[Sirotnikov]

What foreign countries fear is a civil war will break out in the PA.

What you must understand is that from Israel's point of view, it is not threatening. Because while it will increase the general amount of voilence in the area, it will reduce the amount of violence pointed at Israelis.

The PA and all the terrorist groups have been acting in full force for the last 3 years. That's as high as they can make it against Israel.

When Arafat (and maybe some of his close aids too) is gone, there is no one to get Pals shiploads of weapons from Iran (remember Karin A). No one cat act as if they are fighting terror, when they are infact not doing a thing (bogus "hamas arrests" when people are served tea and biscuits and released a week later).

So Arafat, the person who masterminded and "steered" this intifada, will be gone. And without him at the controls, the violence against Israel won't go higher that it was during the last 3 years. Unless Israel for some reason stops hunting Hamas. Which it won't.

[Oerdin]

Dyl: I never said Germany supported the Israel cabinet's recent vote and simply asked why Germany abstained from the vote. The anwser based upon your quote and what others have said is that the German government does agree with the Syrian bill but that they were afraid to vote for it out of fear of being called anti-semitic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If Syria had dropped the part about blaming Israelo alone for the Mideast violence, we might have actually voted for it considering the fact that we have been publically condemning Israel for threatening to kill Arafat.

I doubt it. Despite being opposed to exiling or killing Arafat, the US simlpy does not allow critical UNSC votes of Israel to go unvetoed, even when fully warranted.

[muppet]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Yeah. Last time you made him an irrelevant leader....

Are you talking the Palestinian PM or the American President?
Oh! Irrelevant. I thought your wrote incompentent....

[Sirotnikov]

Yeah. Last time you made him an irrelevant leader....

He truly became an irrelevant leader.

Almost no one visited him for the last several months.

You people have absolutely no time scale or sense.

This whole "we love Arafat" show is a short sherade. Rather the last respect payed to Arafat before he is removed from the picture.

Once removed, a few months later, he'll be about as popular as Ghadaffi or Idi Amin.

[Nubclear]

No, Israel doesn't make leaders incompentent. Israels leaders do that all to well to themselves.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I doubt it.

Considering the fact that we are publically condemning the Israeli idea, I'll lean more toward my view that the resolution would have gone through.

[Sirotnikov]

I doubt it. Despite being opposed to exiling or killing Arafat, the US simlpy does not allow critical UNSC votes of Israel to go unvetoed, even when fully warranted.

While I understand the european logic for demanding Israel not to target Arafat, it is completely unwarranted or justified to blame Israel for the recent events.

It was not Israel that pulled the rug under Abu Mazen - but Arafat. It was not Israel that started a wave of assassinations of terrorist leaders, but a bloody Hamas attack on a Jerusalem Bus.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Quote:

I doubt it. Despite being opposed to exiling or killing Arafat, the US simlpy does not allow critical UNSC votes of Israel to go unvetoed, even when fully warranted.

While I understand the european logic for demanding Israel not to target Arafat, it is completely unwarranted or justified to blame Israel for the recent events.

Look at it this way. Even in situations where a critical vote is warrented, the US will vetoe anything critical of Israel. This situation it was not warranated, therefore how could we expect the US to do anything but veto the resolution. But Syria gets to make the US again look like the bad guy in the Arab world.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Maybe you're just blinded by your rabid likudnik bias.

BTW I'm hardly a Likudist. Though I do admite that the since the Palestinian leadership sponsors terrorism I believe they are a threat to the world and the current crop of leaders should be removed from power. I further admite that I blame the Palestinian leadership for not wanting peace especially since Clinton came up with a very reasonable peace plan which gave them 98% of what they wanted but Arafat still refused peace.

Can Israel do anything to make peace more likely? Yes, the furthest out settlements should ultimately be abandoned though doing so is a big step and Arafat will never trade anything for it. On the contrary Arafat is taken every concession offered so far and then the PA has simply increased terror attacks believing that will bring about more concessions. Clearly, Israel has tried to end the violence many times in the last 12 years but the Palestinians have always opted for violence.

How can peace be achieved when the PA will not accept it? Arafat thinks he'll get more from violence then from peace there for he has always refused peace and so he is an obstical to peace.