A question about the recent votes on the UNSC.

[Dinner]

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.

[BeBMan]

Re: A question about the recent votes on the UNSC.

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]

Re: A question about the recent votes on the UNSC.

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]

Re: A question about the recent votes on the UNSC.

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?

[Dinner]

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.