A middle way
Is there a middle way between telling Israel to stop or encouraging her - in effect - to carry on?
Tony Blair clearly thinks there is. At in Downing Street this afternoon (watch Blair's statement here) I asked him which of these two messages he was sending to Israel. He insisted that that was not the choice. "I want the killing to stop. I want the killing to stop on both sides," he said, "but it's not going to happen on both sides unless we have a plan to make it".
When a journalist from the Middle East translated this as "you want the killing to go on" the Prime Minister shook his head as if in despair. He knows that the fighting in Lebanon is dividing the coalition against terrorism which he is so desperate to build.
At his side - but clearly not shoulder to shoulder with him - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that Israel's action in Lebanon would "backfire" in Iraq, that it would result in a "great push to fundamentalism" and send a "negative message" to those who want peace.
Tony Blair blames Hezbollah for this crisis and says that "the purpose is to force moderate people to divide".
Today showed the clearest possible illustration of that.
I'm 
Comments
Can you not use the weirdo-practice of calling Israel "she", like it's some delicate young maiden that needs protecting? Treat it like every other country in the world, and use neuter pronouns.
YO ROBINSON
I trust you journos shouted out YO BLAIR at the conference. The problem is that Britain has no leverage in the MID EAST now Blair is lame duck
and is tied up in Iraq and elsewhere
Bush wants Israel to punish Hezbollah
and frankly Hezbollah are to Israel
what Al - Queda are to the US and UK.
I wonder if rockets reained down on us froma group like Hezbollah dont think the public here would think twice about action against their sponsors. Lebanon has a uselessly weak govt it has had to allow terrorists to take over part of their country sponsored surely by Syria. There is no solution we have been through solutions for decades
but Blair is on his way out Gordon Brown says not a word about this and vanishes to be with his child but
he could still say something from Scotland. Israel will do what it has to do and so will the aggressors called Hezbollah. In the end there be a another Mid East war sory but thats the realistic outcome.
Nick,
Are you being, perhaps, a tad naive ?
Whether or not the British and Iraqi Prime Ministers agree or not on the results of this catastrophe in the Lebanon, one thing is for sure, they have different audiences to satisfy, different objectives and slightly different recent histories.
A British PM who says that the Israeli action would "backfire" and result in "a great push to fundamentalism" will immediately be asked by yourself or a distinguished colleague how that squares with the Iraqi invasion and his claim that this will lead to greater security.
An Iraqi PM saying it will appeal to supporters back home, and saying it while standing next to TB might even raise a few chuckles from the gathered scribes (surely you didn't miss the dig ?) and a few sad nods of agreement back in Baghdad.
kim
Blair clearly has a big credibility gap both at home and abroad, especially but not exclusively, over the Middle East. The issue he has in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon etc. is that the people he needs to convince aren't going to be sitting round a conference table with him or anyone else in the foreseeable future. Basically because they don't see him or probably anyone in the West as people who have any right, nor the trustworthiness, in negotiating anything about that region.
Essentially what he thinks just doesn't matter to them any more than is increasingly the case over domestic policy for us here too. Can anyone point to anything of real significance that his administration has delivered on time , on budget to the original quality standards? Either at home or abroad.
Nick,
Listened to your comments on 91Èȱ¬ News at 10. Negative messages are cheap and I was not sure what your "big idea" was. If we had a terrorist force with thousands of rockets dug into southern Ireland firing rockets into Wales and South West England what would you expect us to do? Is the media's job really just to undermine the Government? Looked across the 91Èȱ¬'s website today and failed to find anything positive or constructive. Can you point me to something that I have missed?
Look forward to your reply.
Ron Newman
I wish I understood fully the intricacies of this conflict but I do not, and probably never will.
What I do understand is that Tony Blair and George Bush have taken their respective countries into a war ("on terror") which not only threatens to go global but which also self-evidently cannot be won.
The "Yo Blair" moment has given us a fly on the wall insight into just how much the US President is aware of the complex issues - "You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hizbullah to stop doing this sh£t and it's over."
Thank you Mr President. I am relieved. For some reason, I thought it was much more complicated than that.
Now, are you really more shocked that he said, "sh£t" or that he has the mind of a simpleton?
It certainly is very odd that Tony Blair refuses to ask for a ceasefire.
It is odd that Condi Rice is not asking for a ceasefire.
It is odd that Bush got the G8 statement rewritten so it did not ask for a ceasefire.
Not surprising a journalist said to Blair "you want the killing to go on."
Blair and Bush have given Israel the green light to carry on killing children and families, 150 children, to decimate a city and cause the evacuation of half a million people and counting and to hit ambulance convoys and innocent people fleeing.
Why won't they condemn Israel? We should wonder if they do want the killing to go on. And after Iraq we should be very suspicious of their motives. What is their end game? Is it Iran?
Every patriot has a duty to ask questions and to ask if our leaders are acting in our interest or just their own.
Blair is probaly (with Ahmed-e-nejad), the least qualified world politico to be an "intermediary" in this mess.
An appalling track record, and zero credibility.
The only dignified course for the UK, is to join the generalised Euro hand-wringing, and give priority and license to Hilary Benn, to make a decent contribution to humanitarian relief.
The US is not open to persuasion or influence. Let alone Hezbollah or Israel.
When Rice talks to regional politicos (outside the Washington goldfish bowl),she starts to sound fairly reasonable, but after a quick 'phone call to Dick Cheney, it's back on message.
There IS a 'special relationship'.
Problem for the UK, is that it's between the US and Israel. Not the UK.
Congratulations Mr Robinson in turning a serious situation in the Middle East into an anti Blair newslog
The PM did not start this crisis, nor will he be able to stop it. He must however ensure that his comments don't inflame an already tense situation. No minister can openly say the hard truth, the government of Lebanon and the United Nations failed to disarm Hezbollah in accordance with UN resolutions, therefore Isreal must, otherwise there will be civilian deaths for ever more.
While I accept the PM must articulate the official UK position, it was most interesting to hear Sir Menzies Campbells views, I await the same from Mr David Cameron or even Mr William Hague.
We surely couldn't expect Blair to take a strong stance in either direction on this issue and in a way I do believe that there is a middle ground to solve the problem. perhaps Israel have been too excessive in their response but if you think about what you would want in this situation then you may not think so. This whole thing has stemmed from terrorism and before Israel will stop, the initial problem needs to be resolved- 'Tony Blair blames Hezbollah'- well who doesn't?
Yes Israel's response was a bit over the top, i think a few days of seeing where the political land lay would have bourne more fruit especially as they had the full backing of the US for a military option as a trump card "I'm going to smack you in five minutes" is a lot more effective than a delivering a smack there and then.
Having said that the Lebanese government have failed at the very least to disarm Hezbollah as per UN resolution 1559. Supposedly to be completed in 30 days - well its now two years, someone should ask Kofi if he still stands by the resolution and yes that goes for all of them otherwise whats the point. The Lebanese gov could have stopped the supply of arms to Hezbollah from Syria/Iran or passed on digressions to the UN for action.
The two soldiers were kidnapped from thier own country and taken into a foreign country so now we have in excess of 150 dead I must say that the nature of this type of warfare is regrettably "normal" a sobering thought is to compare that with the daily count in Iraq.
Israel is happy for a EU force to control the buffer zone I would be very interested in to where Tony Blair is going to get his complement from - probably from Iraq as the soldiers go on end of tour in Iraq they have to do six months in Lebanon. But what on earth does TB think he is up to in the middle east anyway, not only does he have burnt fingers but now he wants burnt toes.
Your ask some interesting questions. Then you answer them yourself.
What you should have also asked is, why the MSM/91Èȱ¬ does not bother to tell us what the real reasons are.
Could you explain. What do you meen by the leaders of the western world, acting in THEIR own interests. Because it seems to me that winning a THIRD WORLD WAR, and preventing a middle-eastern nuclear holocaust, is in the interests of all of humanity, Jewish, Muslim, athiest and Christian?
Would you prefer that our leaders did not even make an effort to try?
Please try not to be taken in my people such as George Gallaway and many 91Èȱ¬ staff etc. These people have revised their understanding of history to considering EVERY victory of western civilisation to be the worst sin imaginable.
Your enemies do not care about the human lives of their enemies any more then HS Truman did 61 years ago. The good thing for you and me is that our side won. Good that Japan did not contain half the worlds oil supplies. Because if Japan had, you can be sure that many more American Japanise and other people would have died, protecting it.
I feel Mr Blair has really run out of options now. He cannot bring himself to the view of the US Administration which is quite ruthless and sees anything anti Isreali as terrorism, and he cannot pull away completely from them. Blair is stuck and has become a liability to himself and our preferred Foreign Policy. And if what Blair exhibits is our preferred Foreign Policy, what a woeful state of affairs we really face. To let bombing continue, as the overnight news shows, the Israeli strikes hit UN as well as civilian targets and what Israel feel are terrorists. We are stuck and we need to get out of this awful warring between neighbours out there and certainly not sponsor one over the other as seems we do now allowing killing as a collateral calculation. I don't want either Israel or their Neighbours at war or killing each other, there is no right in wrong doing.
The invasion of Lebanon is a bait to draw Syria and Iran into open warfare. With US muscle, Israel hopes to flush out the Big Boys, and gain control of the whole of the Middle East (Jordan, Egypt and Arabia being already in the pockets of US).
Tony is full of praise for the Israelis dropping leaflets telling Lebanise to leave or they will get killed.
Would it not have been easier to stop half a million Lebanese being driven out of their homes than having to deal with them when they arrive on our door step demanding refugee status?
It looks like Tony will never win.
First, he is accused of mass deception in his quest for weapons of mass destruction and consequently accused of illegality and war crimes.
Second, he is accused of not doing anything, and therefore,wants 'the killing to go on'.
Accused of doing something and then of doing nothing.If only he'd listen!
He can't win, so I think we are as well as a Nation to respect his judgement.
Those in disagreement, should honour Democracy and our right to live freely within it, by waiting for the next General Election.
Armchair Generals and Diplomats represented by Captain Fruitcake normally wake up disappointed.
Tony hasn't won a hat-trick of wins by getting his foreign policy wrong.
Gary
1)The focus and emphasis is on Israeli military actions in Lebanon and Gaza while attacks against Israel are mentioned only fleetingly and in passive language.
2) There are no interviews or human interest stories examining Israel’s toll in a conflict started by Hamas and Hizballah.
3) There are no live reports from Israel, but there are several from Lebanon.
4) The Israeli perspective is allowed to be drowned out by the Arab perspective both in the disproportionate number of anti-Israel speakers and the time allotted to each.
waiting for an answer in my Inbox.
T Snow - I couldn't agree more. Every patriot should question every move of its government - not a question of 'if you are not with us, you are against us'.
I am with my country - not necessarily with my government, not esp if it is Tony Blair's Labour.
Ron Newman obviously was asleep for the last 30 years, did the british bomb ireland back 50 years during the period when the IRA were attacking us? no..
And who are israel to lecture the world on terrorism? their very state is founded on terrorism, be it from the stern gang who killed british service men, to the blowing to bits of whole families on the beachs of gaza.
Nice, I read this blog a few days late but felt I had to say something. Ron Newman asked what would be our response if the IRA were firing rockets at us from southern Ireland. The fact is, during the 1970s and 80s, Britain didn't start shelling Dublin after Enniskillen, Warrenpoint or Hyde Park. What's needed is a little more stoicism from the people, and leaders, of Israel (and the USA).
Ron Newman asks what the UK would do if terrorists were dug in and firing rockets from Southern Ireland. Using the current Israeli mode of defence the UK would presumably plaster Dublin with cruise missiles...
Evidently it is not just the arab press who interpret the Bush/Blair stance as being "carry on killing". The Israeli government takes the same message according to their Justice Minister
Of course with the US solidly backing Israels right to bomb the UN there isnt alot the rest of the world could do even if Blair werent biting the pillow and thinking of Texas. About the only useful thing that the EU could do at the moment is to suspend Israeli participation in our free trade agreements and block arms transfers, but in his frantic hopes for a reach-around or maybe just a cuddle I suspect Blair would block any such attempt.
You only have peace, or the promise of peace, when bombs no longer fall and guns are no longer fired. Until both sides agree to talk, the situation will continue to worsen although Israel has managed another in a long series of own goals. It is remarkable when they are taking on a terrorist organisation, but those of us who are against Israel's actions are not by any means saying Hizbollah is in any way legitimate in its own actions.
What annoys me are those people who confuse an anti-Israel stance where that country's violent actions against civilians are concerned with anti-semitism; I am no anti-semite and deeply resent those who seem to think you have to associate the Jewish people with Israel so strongly that to criticise the country is to somehow abuse people on the grounds of race.
I think it serves a dubious purpose to blur the lines, and today's announcement by Israeli officials that they take the failure of the UN to reach agreement on calling for a ceasefire as proof the world is in favour of the carnage being wreaked furthers my opinion that the likes of Blair and Bush, who could wield influence, fail to do so at the cost of many thousands of innocent lives.
Tony Blair is highly astute. However I am unable to fathom why he is so gutless when he supports President Bush blindly especially when you witness Israeli carnage in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel's disproportionate force used in Lebanon will erode support from fair-minded observers. It is this blind support for America which is so worrying and which is causing so much consternation in Europe and in so many world capitals. It is high time Blair shows he is no poodle of George Bush but a statesman of international stature who is able to inspire others for world peace.
Tony Blair blames Hezbollah for this crisis and says that "the purpose is to force moderate people to divide". Today showed the clearest possible illustration of that.
That division is Hezbollah's purpose, or that TB blames Hezbollah? Please be clear about what you think is being clearly illustrated!
It doesn't seem obvious Hezbollah care much about or put much store by "moderates". So I guess you must just mean that it illustrates that TB blames Hezbollah.
Since he seems to be subscribing to the American and Israeli idea that nothing must be done until Hezbollah has been destroyed, the Middle-east has been "remade", and returning to the "status quo ante" is impossible, blaming Hezbollah would seem to be a given.
And yet what of the injustices against the Palestinians that preceded Hezbollah, which Hezbollah, and Hamas and the PLO compete to oppose? Injustices which seem vast and long lasting, and mostly against civilians, compared to the seizing of a few uniformed Israeli fighting personel.
Although it seems incredible that Israel would to attempt a physical final solution of those issues instead of a legal and negotiated solution, one can understand some foolish politicians there grasping the opportunity of the present US government. But how does one explain the UK government falling so totally in with it?
There must be huge dangers for this country, and all of us who are its citizens and residents, in TB enabling and sponsoring such destructive and criminal acts as members of his "Coalition on Terror" are now all too obviously deliberately perpetrating.
Acts that, far from destroying all support for Palestinians, makes the case for the reopening and solution of such issues as the ignoring of international law by, and the nature and overly-armed status of Israel look very moderate.
Blair and Bush aren't pressing for an immediate ceasefire. They want a lasting peace. Unless I'm thoroughly mistaken, lasting peace can only begin when there is a ceasefire. There is NO THIRD WAY.
In a similar way, Blair cannot expect to pass on the baton to Gordon Brown without a ceasefire. Or is he gonna go down fighting and die like a dog?
Lebanon is paying the price for allowing hizbollah, supported by Syria and Iran, to stay in the south and lob rockets over the border into Israel. There is no need for 'middle ground' in the resolution process. What is needed is for Israel to be supported to kill every last one of the hizbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Iran and Syria have actively fermented this totally unnecessary war. Their day of reckoning must also be on the world's radar...
Tony Blair seemed to have a strategy when he claimed that part of his reason for going to Iraq was to get the Americans to sort out the Israel-Palestine problem in a fair manner. Now he is talking about putting a band-aid on the problem by having a plan to stop Hezbollah.
Mark - 15 and David - 16
I think I really must defend old Ron Newman here. PIRA didn't have 5,000 ballistic missiles in an annexed bit of Eastern Eire that they ruled independently of the Irish government. If they did and started popping them off at Wales and the SW, I'm pretty sure we would have bombed the living daylights out of them. The Irish government in fact did a pretty decent job of keeping PIRA "militants" under control - unlike the Lebanese government.
Hizbollah had this coming, and I do not think anyone can blame Israel for defending itself. The soft approach, attempting to minimise civilian casualties, as used by the US and UK in Iraq clearly did not work. We have no solution, maybe the Israelies have a more realistic view of the middle east.
I listened to you questions askeked to Blair & Bush, and all I can say is that your goodself is a sad refection on UK journalisam. Will you be able to reflect the "same" impartiality when Blair meets with Murdoch in California this weekend? Tim
Tony Blair blames Hezbollah for this crisis and says that "the purpose is to force moderate people to divide". Today showed the clearest possible illustration of that.
That division is Hezbollah's purpose, or that TB blames Hezbollah? Please be clear about what you think is being clearly illustrated!
It doesn't seem obvious Hezbollah care much about or put much store by "moderates". So I guess you must just mean that it illustrates that TB blames Hezbollah.
Since he seems to be subscribing to the American and Israeli idea that nothing must be done until Hezbollah has been destroyed, the Middle-east has been "remade", and returning to the "status quo ante" is impossible, blaming Hezbollah would seem to be a given.
And yet what of the injustices against the Palestinians that preceded Hezbollah, which Hezbollah, and Hamas and the PLO compete to oppose? Injustices which seem vast and long lasting, and mostly against civilians, compared to the seizing of a few uniformed Israeli fighting personel.
Although it seems incredible that Israel would to attempt a physical final solution of those issues instead of a legal and negotiated solution, one can understand some foolish politicians there grasping the opportunity of the present US government. But how does one explain the UK government falling so totally in with it?
There must be huge dangers for this country, and all of us who are its citizens and residents, in TB enabling and sponsoring such destructive and criminal acts as members of his "Coalition on Terror" are now all too obviously deliberately perpetrating.
Acts that, far from destroying all support for Palestinians, makes the case for the reopening and solution of such issues as the ignoring of international law by, and the nature and overly-armed status of Israel look very moderate.
It is no suprise that Jack Straw is critisising Israel, that is all he has ever done, he has been taken in by the "we are all victims of Israeli aggression" by the Palestinians for years! Israel is at war and civilians will be killed! Just as they have been in Iraq! The difference is when Israel is at war every civilian casualty is published across the media, unlike in Iraq when civilians were being killed in Allied Bombing raids! You did not hear the International community calling for a cease fire then!
Israels enemies always attack from civilian areas to case casualties by Israeli responces in order to maximis propaganda against Israel.
Why are the US and UK not calling for a cease fire? Because they know the root problem needs to be addressed, but the likes of Jack Straw and the Western Media care little about the daily attacks on Israel that have been going on for years!