Replies

The discussions prior to the Security Council vote were described as "marathon". Syria apparently abstained because the language wasn't tough enough. In hindsight, the US position was forseeable because Zinni was kept in the region, so the US is, in principle, committed to moving the discussions forward -- whatever that means.

A few sops were thrown to the Israelis placing the blame on "both sides". This was probably about all the US could get the other Security Council members to agree on.

Sharon is now in an impossible position. If he backs down, he will be a broken reed. If he presses on, the Saudi Peace Process, together with all the deals that are tied up with it, including possible cooperation on the Iraq attack, are out the window. It is hard to see this as anything other than a victory for Arafat in his fight against Sharon. But it isn't necessarily a victory for Arafat. If Sharon falls, then Bibi may come aboard, with a stronger majority behind him.

I guess the US decided it couldn't back Sharon, possibly because Sharon wasn't willing to go the whole 9 yards. This is politics at it's most cynical.

Not only cynical, this is politics at its most suicidal. Where are you Bushbots out there to defend the administration's actions. This is despicable!

Good points.

If we are going after Iraq it would be nice to have Bibi around.