Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Cabinet in open revolt over Blair's Israel policy
Tony Blair was facing a full-scale cabinet rebellion last night over the Middle East crisis after his former Foreign Secretary warned that Israel's actions risked destabilising all of Lebanon.
Jack Straw, now Leader of the Commons, said in a statement released after meeting Muslim residents of his Blackburn constituency that while he grieved for the innocent Israelis killed, he also mourned the '10 times as many innocent Lebanese men, women and children killed by Israeli fire'.
He said he agreed with the Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells that it was 'very difficult to understand the kind of military tactics used by Israel', adding: 'These are not surgical strikes but have instead caused death and misery amongst innocent civilians.' Straw said he was worried that 'a continuation of such tactics by Israel could destabilise the already fragile Lebanese nation'.
The Observer can also reveal that at a cabinet meeting before Blair left for last Friday's Washington summit with President George Bush, minister after minister pressed him to break with the Americans and publicly criticise Israel over the scale of death and destruction.
The critics included close Blair allies. One, the International Development Secretary, Hilary Benn, was revealed yesterday to have told a Commons committee that he did not view Israel's strikes on power stations as a 'proportionate response' to Hizbollah attacks.
Another Blairite minister among the cabinet critics said: 'It was clear that Tony knows the situation, and didn't have to be told about the outrage felt by so many over the disproportionate suffering. He also completely understands the effect on the Muslim community - both in terms of losing Muslim voters hand over fist and the wider issue of community cohesion.'
Blair responded to the dissenters by 'engaging seriously', the minister said. 'But he made it clear why he felt he had to choose the high-risk strategy of trying to move things forward for the future of the Middle East through his talks in Washington.'
In addition to the cabinet critics, one of Blair's closest Labour confidants was understood to have urged him last week to 'place distance' between himself and Bush over the crisis.
In interviews last night in San Francisco, the Prime Minister defended his decision not to call for an immediate ceasefire, but voiced the hope that an agreement on a UN framework for ending hostilities could be reached within a period of days. Asked by Sky News if he was too close to the White House, he said: 'I will never apologise for Britain being a strong ally of the US.'
He said there had been 'perfectly good' cabinet discussions on Lebanon, telling the BBC they had not been divisive: 'What they were saying was: "Let us make sure with urgency we can stop this situation which is killing innocent people".' Yet there had to be a long-term solution, he said.
The increase in political pressure came as shifts by Israel and Hizbollah provided the first faint signs of encouragement for US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to sell a Blair-Bush plan for a ceasefire.
Diplomats said her mission would still be difficult, with Israeli strikes continuing in a bid to end rocket attacks by Hizbollah and the militia vowing to increase them. But as Rice arrived in Jerusalem last night, an Israeli official said his government would no longer insist on immediate disarmament by the militia as part of a deal. The Israelis would accept an interim arrangement under which an international force moved it back from the border and prevented it firing into Israel. Hizbollah has accepted a Lebanese government proposal including an international force.
More
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1833538,00.html
He said he agreed with the Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells that it was 'very difficult to understand the kind of military tactics used by Israel', adding: 'These are not surgical strikes but have instead caused death and misery amongst innocent civilians.' Straw said he was worried that 'a continuation of such tactics by Israel could destabilise the already fragile Lebanese nation'.
The Observer can also reveal that at a cabinet meeting before Blair left for last Friday's Washington summit with President George Bush, minister after minister pressed him to break with the Americans and publicly criticise Israel over the scale of death and destruction.
The critics included close Blair allies. One, the International Development Secretary, Hilary Benn, was revealed yesterday to have told a Commons committee that he did not view Israel's strikes on power stations as a 'proportionate response' to Hizbollah attacks.
Another Blairite minister among the cabinet critics said: 'It was clear that Tony knows the situation, and didn't have to be told about the outrage felt by so many over the disproportionate suffering. He also completely understands the effect on the Muslim community - both in terms of losing Muslim voters hand over fist and the wider issue of community cohesion.'
Blair responded to the dissenters by 'engaging seriously', the minister said. 'But he made it clear why he felt he had to choose the high-risk strategy of trying to move things forward for the future of the Middle East through his talks in Washington.'
In addition to the cabinet critics, one of Blair's closest Labour confidants was understood to have urged him last week to 'place distance' between himself and Bush over the crisis.
In interviews last night in San Francisco, the Prime Minister defended his decision not to call for an immediate ceasefire, but voiced the hope that an agreement on a UN framework for ending hostilities could be reached within a period of days. Asked by Sky News if he was too close to the White House, he said: 'I will never apologise for Britain being a strong ally of the US.'
He said there had been 'perfectly good' cabinet discussions on Lebanon, telling the BBC they had not been divisive: 'What they were saying was: "Let us make sure with urgency we can stop this situation which is killing innocent people".' Yet there had to be a long-term solution, he said.
The increase in political pressure came as shifts by Israel and Hizbollah provided the first faint signs of encouragement for US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to sell a Blair-Bush plan for a ceasefire.
Diplomats said her mission would still be difficult, with Israeli strikes continuing in a bid to end rocket attacks by Hizbollah and the militia vowing to increase them. But as Rice arrived in Jerusalem last night, an Israeli official said his government would no longer insist on immediate disarmament by the militia as part of a deal. The Israelis would accept an interim arrangement under which an international force moved it back from the border and prevented it firing into Israel. Hizbollah has accepted a Lebanese government proposal including an international force.
More
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1833538,00.html
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Actions speak louder than words and all that, so there's little value in pointing out that Scots are almost unanimous in their horror at the ferocity of Israel's response to Hizbollah's attacks. It seems we remain impotent as US planes pass through one of our airports with their bunker-busting bombs for the front; impotent and complicit.
We've been here before. Last time, it was the rendition flights being routed through Prestwick. We wouldn't even know it was happening if it wasn't for the plane spotters, carefully noting each arrival, taking their crucial photographs. Nowadays, we may not be allowed to protest outside Westminster but, for the moment, the plane spotters can embarrass the government.
The Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, wrested a one-line apology from the American President but not, as the SNP's Alex Salmond points out, for the reasons one would hope for. Mrs Beckett is worried about health and safety, that an accident might mean the bunkers that get busted are at Royal Troon rather than Bint Jbeil. The morality in passing weapons to an Israel intent on collective punishment is by the by.
'Margaret Beckett may say she is complaining formally to the US ... but her complaint is procedural rather than one based on the principle of bringing about an immediate ceasefire,' says Salmond. Although he doesn't spell it out, this issue is a winner for the SNP. Our impotence can be solved by independence.
In the SNP's view, Scotland needs to back away from warmongering. With clean consciences, we could air our disgust. Meanwhile, we would get rid of the nuclear weapons on the Clyde.
The SNP could achieve this, but I wonder what the point would be? Our consciences might be salved by stopping these planes from travelling through our airports, but what then?
We would be swapping one form of impotence for another. Scotland would become a country no longer complicit in such dirty work, but incapable of acting either. We would be sitting comfortably and doing nothing. And doing nothing, as has been noted by better men than me, can be the worst of all acts.
There was a time - and this is probably at the heart of Blair's determination to stick with George W Bush - when Britain did stop slaughter.
As my colleague Nick Cohen pointed out last week, there were a string of successes - American - in Kosovo and Serbia, but Britain made a difference in Sierra Leone. The Scotland that Salmond is talking about could never do that. There is a moment for intervention and Britain is one of the few countries that can be effective, far more effective than the UN or the EU.
So, while Salmond has been adroit in his use of the Prestwick situation, we shouldn't be seduced into thinking independence is the answer. The bombs will just pass through somewhere else, as we become ineffectual.
This doesn't offer a solution to current headlines. As events stand, Scottish voters are going to find themselves in a bind come next year's elections, unable to punish the shocking misjudgments of a Labour leadership gone off the rails, but with no reasonable and effective options. It is frustrating.
That is why so much rests with Labour activists at the autumn party conference. Blair has to go. If we want to make a positive impact on the world, we need a better choice.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1833372,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11
We should be worrying about how this is going to affect all of us!.. As it is it is Broadcast to Television screens around the world and traumatizing people everywhere! This horrible and can not be justified.
This planet has reached a point where we can destroy it and we are our own worst enemy! The greatest challenge to the planet is our own “Psychic” .. We are the masters of our own Destiny.. The Question is “WHAT DO WE WANT??”
Bury our heads in the sand?
Or
Have a vision for the future?
Please consider this Japanese Proverb: “Vision without action is but a dream.. Action without a Vision, is a nightmare”
What we have here is a world without Vision and the nightmare is on our TVs..
So where is our vision aimed?
What world can you see here for yourself and children and friends?
ASK ourselves:
“What sort of world, is a world without Love?
Could we survive in a world without Love?”
I, personally, can not imagine a world without love and Love is all around us if we just look! Just look at the cosmic design presented to us through science!
However, i do find it hard to find Where is the love in This OLD PRIVAMTIVE THINKING that INSISTS that VIOLENCE is justified for any reason? Why not EVOLVE PLEASE?
WHERE are our VISIONARIES that will take us to a BETTER loving FUTURE?
VISIONARIES that will help us realize our next level of CONSCIOUSNESS?
VISOINARIES that can discover the language that brings us all together on this planet, to witness this MIRACLE of LIFE?
A disturbing question would be: “Would we accept the Visionary or just crucify them? nothing much changes in two thousand years does it?”
My advice is Smell the roses and pray for peace
life is truly a miracle
Most importantly:
TRUST in GOD our CREATER .. and
LOVE LIFE and
LOVE TO YOU ALL.
From a brother in spirit of God