Did it take a tragedy ?
San Francisco: Will it, once again, have taken a tragedy to inject real urgency into the search for peace? This morning for the first time "urgent" stopped being a word Tony Blair deployed and was conveyed by his tone and his demeanour. Speaking to us in his hotel suite in San Francisco he declared that what had happened showed that "the situation simply cannot continue". I think he meant it.
He was woken this morning with the news of the of the single bloodiest attack in Israel's 19-day-old war on Hezbollah guerrillas. Soon after he called Lebanon's prime minister to express his sorrow and to discuss the diplomatic way forward. Then he marched through the lobby of the Fairmont Hotel and past my camera, turning only to promise to speak to us soon. His destination was the Sunday morning service at the Grace Cathedral just a few hundred yards up the road.
On his return he made clear that he does now believe the fighting has to stop. He said that he would be making urgent calls and having negotiations with other world leaders. He has promised to call Lebanon's prime minister again. His aim is a UN resolution that produces a ceasefire on both sides. It will include backing - in principle at least - for a new UN stabilisation force (although the detail of who serves and what their specific mandate is may have to follow). It will repeat UN Security Resolution 1559 calling on foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon and for militias to be disarmed. In reality, this is likely to mean incorporating Hezbollah into the Lebanese army and not disbanding them. It may need also to make provision for prisoner exchanges.
We are a long way here from the carnage in Qana but Tony Blair wants to be at the centre of the talking designed to prevent another tragedy like it.
I'm 
Comments
Hi Nick, while Mr Blair dithers around in california and had his Bushy summit, the UN is saying quite a few pertinent things about process and outcomes Annan said 鈥淲e meet at a moment of extreme gravity ? first and foremost for the people of the Middle East, but also for the authority of this Organization, especially this Council,鈥 said the Secretary-General, who, under Article 99 of the Charter, 鈥渕ay bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.鈥漊N statement.
How does Blair carry on with his California agenda, when the big story unfolds so badly? Is it our perception or is he really so out on a limb he has no idea of his impact, or is he as clueless as I suspect what to do next for the best? Shocking don't you think?
"Will it, once again, have taken a tragedy to inject real urgency into the search for peace?"
And what has the last two weeks been, Nick? I take it you've been watching the news?
Too little too late.
The dog has had its day...
Dear Mr. Robinson,
You may be aware of the fact that most people in the Middle East attach high regard and esteem to the 91热爆 -- because of its objectivity and impartiality. Likewise, British politicians like the late Robin Cook and former Foreign Minister Jack Straw are highly respected in the region for their courage and integrity. We do hope that ' other ' British politicians take a leaf from them.
Why does the UN resolution proposed by Blair (No doubt first approved by Bush!) only repeat UN resolution 1559?
There are many other UN resolutions which have not been implemented by the beligerent parties in the middle east.
If Blair wants to show that he is
fair and unbiased the resolution proposed by him must mention the other resolutions as well.
I am sure that would not meet with the approval of his ultimate boss Bush and his hench man Rupert Murdoch.
Blair is a total disgrace to the UK.
Unfortunately would the Tories be any better? I have noted a deafening silence from the Tories!
What is the matter with Tony Blair? How difficult can it be to say, "there must be an immediate ceasefire".
It is sad for a State that was built by the survivors of the Holocaust and prolongued antisemitism to continue to overreact to any attack that befalls them. The Lebanese ,the Palestinian and the Israeli civilians should never be subjected to such attroceties under any moral, religiuos or legal law.
The continued eye for eye tatctics is proving that none of us is worthy of the love and mercy of the Almighty and no one can claim that their God has authorized them to destroy and kill innocent life.
As for the world leaders who are acting like poodles for their own reasons : history , law and morality will judge you in the same box the Nazi leaders who had turned their heads away and pretended they were simply following order and the raison d'Etats.
May God engoulf humanity soon with more civility.
Ismail Hummos
Chicago
Weasel words three weeks late.
Why does it take a tragedy?
The tragedy started from the carpet bombing of Lebanon three weeks ago. It became a (near one-sided) war when Hizbollah escalated its attacks with its rhetoric. This is just another chapter in the Lebanese disaster.
It has been fostered by the US and until now reluctantly by the UK.
Blair has capitualated to the US many times with very little to show for it.
Kofi Annan can plead for help but neither he nor Blair can end it until the US are satisfied that Israel has done the damage it needs to do.
Terrorists cannot be bombed into oblivion. Tony Blair realises that, why won't he take action? He simply can't.
His rule of not criticising the US in public means a carte blanche for Bush's foreign policy. But more importantly it makes him appear unprincipled and politically weak.
How is the killing of 600 civilians not already "tragedy" enough? What you imply is that eventually there is an outrage so extreme that even supine politicians and media feel queasy enough at the level of indiscriminate killing to call for a ceasefire. The reason it takes that long is because both the politicians and the fourth estate are wholly unaccountable.
You'd have to be a complete idiot not to have realised something like this was going to happen.
The USA's middle east policy is now in complete tatters.
And the UK, courtesy of Tony Blair's blind allegiance to the USA, are now tarred with the same brush.
Hezbollah have gone from zeros to heros in the eyes of many Muslims.
What a mess.
P.S. Nick thanks's for keeping your reporting to reporting the facts while both Dale & Guido have been full-on apologists for the Isaerli action.
I find it nauseating that having blocked all calls for an immediate ceasefire, Blair and Rice are now expressing their regrets and condolences.
They are complicit in every death.
Tell us what he does tonight - Rumour has it Blair's off to a secret meeting with members of the Bilderberg group at the Bohemian Club north of San Fran.
I think we are all just sick of Tony "holier than though" Blair - the sooner he and Bush are gone the better.
Both should be tried for war crimes - that is not to excuse the terrorists or Saddam - but we have lost the moral high ground in our actions over the last few years. The amount of innocent people killed will leave us with a dreadful legacy that will, ultimately, have to be cleared up by their sucessors.
"Will it, once again, have taken a tragedy to inject real urgency into the search for peace?"
Wrong tragedy Nick - the real tragedy is why Hezbollah were allowed to build up their stocks after Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago when the world knew it wanted to destroy Israel. I know about this - I visit the border at least twice yearly, and I mean the border, sleeping 30 yards from it!. If only the 91热爆 would stop wringing its hands and stop the acknowledged bias in its reporting...but then that's a tregedy too.
Well, I am sure that there are many in Britain who, like me, did not need this extra incentive to feel a definite 'urgency' for peace in the Middle East. I'm sorry that Tony Blair did need it. Sorry because it isn't going to be him who personally suffers for hanging around, debating the use of the word 'immediate'. Yes, I know that may be harsh and grating, but I really feel it needed to be said.
I don't pretend to know much about the Middle East, and I don't presume to know the answer either. But two things are glaringly obvious to me, and they must also be obvious to Tony Blair, George Bush, and Israel. One, that the presence of a terrorist organisation like Hezbollah comes of a lasting and unaddressed resentment concerning past events. Two, that Israel's current policy will only lead to more of the same, and a strengthened Hezbollah that will only benefit from the (I believe) legitimate anger of Lebanon's people.
The way forward must involve a complete change in Israeli policy. Not just for the good of the people of Lebanon, but also for the good of the people of Israel. Peace is possible, but both sides have to be prepared to make sacrifices, and to forget the past. Can the people of Lebanon do it? At the moment, the voice of Lebanon is impossible to hear through all the screaming. Can Israel stop making a noise and listen?
I don't know. I sincerely hope that they can.
Ironic that Blair feels so strongly that the fighting must stop - on the same day U.S. weapons supply flights to Israel stop over in the UK - because Ireland won't let them land.
And if he had acted a few days ago this could have been prevented. How does he sleep at night?
The last thing we want is more hot air and talking. Keep Mr Blair away from the Middle East, he has caused enough damage already.
Yeah, well he's waited long enough before seeing sense.
And how many rockets and mortars went over from Lebanon to Israel today? And where were they fired from? And how many people in Israel were killed or injured by them?? It takes two to have a ceasefire, Hizbollah seem quite happy with what is going on (as confirmed by Jeremy Bowen this evening) so what are the chances of all these fine words adding up to any sort of a result?
The books on the set of the interview, un dystjacketed tat from some cheap fillum set ?
Let's have dignity when we discuss death of women and children on an industrial scale.
...some flowers maybe ?
you've got a strange sense of tragedy. hundreds of people dead already and it's not a tragedy until today?
Yes it is indeed noteworthy that it reuqires a tragedy of cataclysmic proportions for world leaders to take note, but one can only be thankful when this occurs. Hopefully Mr Blair will be successful in galvanising other leaders and the UN to urgently provide a workable solution.
One hopes that innocent lives will be spared and peace brought to the Middle East, as has happenend in NIreland.
I too suspect that Tony Blair is in absolute earnest now. The big test will be to see how strong a tug the poodle can give on his lead - sometimes poodles can be quite feisty!
I think that this is one of the sad things about life; that sometimes it takes tragedy to bring issues to people's attention and get things moving with, as you say Nick, urgency.
Best wishes, Alice x
I can't believe that one attack, merely increasing an already horrendous death toll by a few per cent, caused Mr Blair to re-analyse his position over croissants and happen to come up with a brand new policy.
It seems to me that the rapidity of this about-turn can only be explained if he always knew what he was representing -- i.e. US policy -- was hopelessly wrong. After all, what's really changed in the last 24 hours in the bigger picture? And vastly more innocents have died in Iraq, and he says he doesn't regret that.
A decade ago he could sell any old snake oil. Now he's been seen through so often, his nerves don't hold out as long as they used to. I'm not surprised even such a useless, spineless cabinet finds him increasingly difficult to go along with. He's a busted flush and will do well to survive the ides of September.
(I feel Yet Another appearance on 91热爆 Sport coming up to remind us all how much this guy "loves his footie". It must be a fortnight since he last did that; we'll be in danger of forgetting it soon.)
"Why does it always need a tragedy before we act?"
You mean why does it always need Israel to defend itself against constant daily attacks for the world to start howling for a ceasefire/peace.
In other words: the Israelis have finally realised that they cannot gain anything by their continued slaughter of innocent civilians, and they are now looking for a way out. Bush, not wishing to appear too conciliatory himself, or be seen to have any involvement in discussions with Hizbollah, has accordingly given Bliar his instructions to negotiate on his behalf.
If Tony Blair had campaigned for the implementation of UN resolution 1559 and called for Hexbollah's disarmament when Israel pulled out of South Lebanon, there would not have been so many needless civilian deaths, both in Lebanon and in Israel.
There has been a failure by international journalists to report Katysha rockets falling on Northern Israel for six years. When, finally, Israel has retaliated, journalists who do not understand the Middle East have abused the word "disproportionate" to the point of making it meaningless.
What you and your colleagues have singularly failed to report is one simple fact from the Muslim street, no Muslim will ever agree to the existence of the state of Israel. Had you reported that since 1948, your Western listeners and viewers would understand the real issue about the Middle East.
on his way to the church??? what blashpemy ??
Nicks argument on the immediate ceasefire appears as though Mr Blair and the US have committed a mistake by waiting for the tragedy to occur. In reality that is not the case.
Israel is also taking hits from the Hezbollah rockets which are deliberately targetting civilians unlike Israeli retaliation which are targetted on Hezbollah and not on civilians.
A cease fire should be agreed by both sides and I believe Hezbollah has to stop firing rockets first for they have started this war and then it makes sense for the world leaders to talk to Israel for a cease fire.
How can a country stop defending itself from terrorist attacks?
Nick we would like to have a balanced and more sensible view from a person like you rather than just criticising Mr Blair and the government.
Blair using his usual "serious" face to deliver the news. The plain fact isa that the tragedy he seems suddenly so concerned about would not have happened had he and his best mate Bush not let the bombing continue. So Mr Blair crocodile tears are a bit late now and I for one am ashamed that this is what our government has been reduced to. I am amazed that Blair can sleep at night at all with the amount of innocent blod that he has on his hands, directly in Iraq and indirectly in Lebanon.
How can a country stop defending itself from terrorist attacks, asks Arumugam. Probably with as much difficulty as a population can stop resisting illegal occupation. Israel stole land and is paying the price. It bleats away about being the victim of attacks in order to draw attention away from its own bullying land-grabbing activities. The only thing it cares about is making sure that it gets the borders it wants and Jerusalem as its capital. Israel doesn't care how many Arabs die to make this come to pass.
Hizbollah are a nasty bunch of opportunists but it is Israel and the US who create the opportunities.
To Arumugam...
Hezbollah must stop firing first... How infantile in the face of such inhuman events. And to all those people who keep going on about rockets fired into Israel, it seems to me that you are just using empty words to try to justify the deaths of innocents, including children. It would not surprise me if all these rockets of the past six years had killed significantly less than Israel has in 17 days.
Anyway, whatever you may spout to justify the actions of Israel this past fortnight, nothing can excuse the wholesale slaughter of civilians including young children. These innocents who have died are not members of Hezbollah and, to anyone with a shred of humanity, can never be a 'legitimate' target. It is not possible, no matter how hard you try, to make a case that all these civilian deaths are accidental or 'proportionate' to the aggression faced by Israel.
Finally, how can Israel's actions be justified when they are faced with the 'might' of ageing technology compared to that employed by Israel itself, as provided by the most powerful nation on Earth?
Andy Smith, can you corroborate these
claims of six years of Katysha rockets falling on Northern Israel?
Because it sounds like unmitigated bunkum on your part.
Nick.
Interesting to note your implied definition of the word tragedy.
Apparently, the murder of 8 Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of 2 more; in other words, the Hezbollah-inspired event that began this conflagration, apparently isn't a tragedy. Soldiers don't have mothers or father or sisters or brothers, and since they're only Israelis, who really cares, right Nick?
I am sorry, but the word "terrorist" cannot be thrown about mindlessly yet again. What is a terrorist in the first place?! It is a term used to criticize any organisation that defies the implementation of a forced Westernized 'democracy'. It seems that anything that grazes the trio of US/UK/Israel becomes an axis of terror worthy of annihilation.
Hezbollah has always been part of a community, with schools, hospitals and social care for its part of the population. How can that be termed simply "terrorism"?!
How about the occupation, murder, oppression (of both Lebanon and Palestine), disproportionate offensive and now massacre by Israel escape the term "terrorism"?
Hezbollah was created in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Isn't that something to consider?
Hasn't the destruction of countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lebanon given us any more insight on what the "axis of terrorism" actually is? What next? Syria and Iran, I guess.
And, on another note, any country that builds a fresh shiny shelter with every new home must have devious plans on their mind. How can they convince us of their peaceful intentions when they incorporate the war in all of their blueprints?
Just to continue from my previous comment:
The 91热爆 are a great and fair organisation in its method of providing ballanced journalism to the world on the whole.
They have done much good for the world.
What was said in the previous post is that they are in the position to do a lot more to bring good & life to humanity. More than they already do, as can we all.
This will come to be through further education; understanding the human psychology and most of all by understanding the self and being truthful to oneself.
May all our hopes and actions be towards the 'prophesy' of life prevailing over the 'prophesy' of death, in our personal lives and the collective life of ours, as humanity.
It is absolutely laughable that people suggest Hezbollah started this. It started when Irgun terrorists ethnically cleansed swathes of Palestine, driving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from land their ancestors had farmed for centuries. It continued when Israel invaded Egypt along with Britain and France over Suez. It persisted when Israel invaded Lebanon twenty years ago (which is when Hezbollah sprang into existence as a resistance to Israeli aggression). It continued with the building of a concentration camp for th entire Palestinian people. It continues with the daily slaughter of innocents in Gaza and elsewhere for the past fifty years, and the abduction and imprisonment, without trial, of thousands of Palestinians and hundreds of their children. It continues with the use of an excuse about an attack on Israeli soldiers, who were in Lebanese territory, to justify the indiscriminate bombing of civilians and the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. It will not end until Israelis realise there can be no peace without peace for all, no security without security for all and, most of all, neither peace nor security without Justice and the Rule of Law.
Tony Blair has surprisingly changed his tune and spluttered the word 鈥檆easefire鈥 in respect of the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon. in an ideal world it would be great to have confidence in the UN and it鈥檚 leaders too resolve this issue through diplomacy, but unfortunately this is not going to happen. The reason why鈥. America.
America wants nothing of the sort, it (I mean Bush), has one agenda and one agenda only, too draw Iran into this war. America鈥檚 interest in Israel is that Iran is the only country that supports Lebanon. By supplying Israel with powerful military weapons, Bush knows Iran will on moral grounds likely intervene.
Once again blood will be shed, innocent lives lost.
Time and time again bush and Blair try to convince us that what they are doing is for a just cause. However I find myself constantly wondering who are the terrorists and who are the victims? I am afraid that I firmly believe that the middle east is the victim and the latter the terrorists. America and Britain should not be allowed to get involved in middle east issue鈥檚, then may be the word 鈥榩eace鈥 will not be such a strange and unobtainable concept.
un resolutions? don't make me laugh. if lebannon / palestine had a strong + blind backer like usa is for israel, there won't be a single resolution against those nations.
the only reason there are practically no resolutions against israel is that usa blocks them, regardless of merits.
israel kills un troops, what happened? usa blocks condemnation. israel kills lots of civilians, what happened? usa blocks condemnation.
even when there's a resolution, what happens? israel ignores them. 1559? don't make me laugh, if israel didn't invade lebannon, laid waste to it and thus created hezbollah, there won't be 1559. you can't hope to invade and devastate a country, leave whilst holding its citizens as prisoners and pretend nothing has happened. that's not even mentioning what israel has been doing in palestine, though that's a separate issue.
do remember the sequence of this latest batch of events - hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers, then israel killed the civilians with bombings and then hezbollah hit back with rockets.
i noticed an israeli comment saying if there's no hezbollah, the tragedy wouldn't have happened. how ironic, as if there's no (modern) israel, the same wouldn't have happened either. of course, if the colonial powers didn't mess around in the area since post ww1, promising this that or other, it wouldn't have happened either
Dear Mr Robinson
In response to your latest blog entry, 'Did it take a tragedy?':
You wrote:
'Will it, once again, have taken a tragedy to inject real urgency into the search for peace? This morning for the first time "urgent" stopped being a word Tony Blair deployed and was conveyed by his tone and his demeanour.'
Can you tell what Tony Blair is saying just by his tone and demeanour? I'd be more inclined to judge what Tony Blair means through his actions - or inaction, in the case of his unwillingness to call for an immediate ceasefire.
You wrote:
'Speaking to us in his hotel suite in San Francisco he declared that what had happened showed that "the situation simply cannot continue". I think he meant it.'
Again, look at the long period of inaction. Tony Blair has encouraged the situation to continue through his unwillingness to call for an immediate ceasefire. Meanwhile, many people have been killed.
You wrote:
'He was woken this morning with the news of the of the single bloodiest attack in Israel's 19-day-old war on Hezbollah guerrillas.'
Is it really a war on 'Hezbollah guerillas' or is it a war to destroy Lebanon? Is deliberately targeting ambulances and UN buildings part of the war against 'Hezbollah guerillas'?
You wrote:
'We are a long way here from the carnage in Qana but Tony Blair wants to be at the centre of the talking designed to prevent another tragedy like it.'
Tony Blair always wants to be at the centre of talking. Like when he stressed the importance of (illegally) invading Iraq to find WMD or spread democracy or whatever he 'meant' at the time. Has he prevented a 'tragedy' in Iraq? No, he encouraged it.
Please: stop cuddling up to Blair and start condemning him as a war criminal.
Yours sincerely
Neil Laurenson
Can somebody please tell me this - it is plain that Blair is not the flavour of the century, and as we live in a 'democracy', why can't we chuck him in the chute now, and not wait till the next election?
It is desperation that begs this question.
In 1948, my mother commented that splitting Palestine and creating Israel would lead to constant conflict. Not well known for her worldly wisdom in political matters, she appears to have been proved all too right.
I am hearterly sick of your (Nick Robinson)bias towards Tony Blair, night after night we have to put up with your snide and cynical words towards him influencing the public at large, last night (10 O'clock News)it was cynically conveyed 'that this time TB's words were actually 'genuinely' meant re: the latest atrocity by the Israeli's when a third of the dead were children. Mr Blair's words particulary in a 'humanitarin situation' are ALWAYS GENUINE and I am constantly sickened by the British 'Media' as a whole twisting everything he says or taking things completely 'out of context' thereby totally influencing the public's conception of him.
He is an extremely hardworking PM, only as you were making your snidy comments about him on last nights 'News' you had just shown a photograph of him speaking, and quite honestly he looks completely 'shattered' and as tho' he's at 'deaths door' - I NEVER write to anyone normally of this kind of thing, just slowly 'boil' inside, however I am SO TIRED of the sheer 'INJUSTICE' laid at Tony Blair's feet - he's human for Gods sake, not Superman - he has ALWAYS been one of the most CONCIENTIOUS PM's we have ever had, and quite honestly it will be a sorry day for this Country, the day we no longer have him as our Prime Minister.
Sincerely
G.Hargreaves.
the electorate has absolutely no (direct) power outside of elections in this country.
we do not elect prime ministers or other ministers. we might vote for mps, but most people actually vote for the party rather than the person. in any case, mps do not vote according to the wishes of the constituents.
so, unless a bunch of "new" labour yes man/woman who just follows the whip mindlessly suddenly have a change of heart or somehow dies/gets incompacitated, thus vacating their seats, and the electorate votes in someone who will make the government a minority, thus possibly triggering a general election (assuming the tories will not back blair on the israeli issue.. unlikely), not much will happen. sure, a few marches/riots (poll tax style) might force some labour mps to start thinking about their seats, but it is unlikely to make any difference.
unless we are talking about a scenario of a possible total meltdown of labour votes, forcing the labour party to chuck blair to stem the rot and then get into a coalition with lib dems