Israeli protesters press Binyamin Netanyahu to help free abducted soldier Gilad Shalit.

Pressure is being brought on Netanyahu's government to take action to secure the release of Gilad Shalit, the young Israeli soldier taken prisoner before the start of the Israel Lebanon war.

Thousands of Israelis are expected to join a 12-day march across the country beginning today to put pressure on their government to secure the release of Gilad Shalit, the soldier abducted by Hamas four years ago.

The Shalit family and their supporters will set out from their home in Mitzpe Hila, Galilee, and take a winding route through Israel to Jerusalem. They hope to be joined by artists, musicians, rabbis, activists and "tens of thousands" of ordinary people. On arrival in Jerusalem, Noam Shalit, Gilad's father, plans to establish a protest tent outside the home of the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, where he has pledged to remain until his son is freed.

"We don't see any alternative after four years of government failure to obtain the release of my son," Shalit told the Observer. "There have been many, many failures, but now it's time to put public pressure on the government."

The Shalits yesterday released a video urging Netanyahu to "pay the price" necessary for Gilad's release. In a direct appeal, Noam Shalit says: "Enough talk. Now is the time for decisions." Asked if "the price" – the release of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners – was too high for one soldier, he said: "The price is not our business to deal with."

It was widely presumed at the time Shalit was captured that the Israelis - as they have done so often in the past - would come to a deal in order to obtain the release of this young Israeli. But Olmert, for reasons I could not at the time understand, decided instead to throw Israel into a war in Lebanon, encouraged every step of the way by the Bush administration.

It led to an Israeli loss to Hizbullah, and did nothing to ensure Gilad's release.

Now Israelis of all political hues are supporting the government doing whatever needs to be done to ensure that Shalit is released.

An opinion poll published on Friday showed that almost 75% of Israelis support the release of Palestinian prisoners serving sentences for militant attacks in return for Shalit's freedom.

His fate has huge resonance in Israel, where military service is a requirement. Most families can identify closely with the Shalits' loss.

This could all have been done four years ago. But Olmert, goaded on by Bush, decided it was preferable to reduce Beirut to ruins.

Which is why we find ourselves here four long years later.

The Israeli media is backing the renewed Shalit family campaign, with most newspapers urging the government to strike a deal over his release.

How many lives would have been saved had Olmert done a deal over this four years ago, rather than embrace the insane neo-con logic pushed by Bush and Cheney, that Israel should expand it's raid on Lebanon and move into Syria or Iran?

As I said at the time, the release of Gilad Shalit got placed on the back-burner at the behest of Bush who was more interested in Olmert goading Syria and Iran than in securing the release of one young Israli soldier. His capture was ostensibly the reason for the Israel/Lebanon war, but he was quickly forgotten as once the war started.

Now Shalit's family are demanding that Netanyahu do what Olmert did not, and ensure that he is returned to his parents unharmed.

This should have been done four years ago.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Gilad Shalit, Israel, Hamas

Barak: Ministers' provocations over Jerusalem harming Israel's interests.

At last a sane voice comes from Netanyahu's government:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday lambasted several cabinet ministers whose "provocative" comments he said were harming Israel's relations with the United States amid efforts to get the peace process going through indirect proximity talks with the Palestinians.

"I recommend everyone, both we and the Palestinians, avoid rash and provocative statements," said Barak, responding to a slew of comments made by ministers over the last few days regarding the contentious issue of construction in Jerusalem. "These comments harm Israel's interests, both with regard to the United States and to the international community," said the defense minister.

"These remarks make Israel look like it refuses to make peace and to erode Israel's international reputation."

Barak's criticism came just hours after Interior Minister Eli Yishai declared that Israel had never agreed to freeze construction in Jerusalem, adding that such an American demand would never be met. He also vowed to expedite the procedures for construction across Israel, particularly in Jerusalem, the "capital of the Jewish nation's everlasting homeland.

Certain Israeli politicians seem to want to have their cake and eat it. They demand that the US continue to give them $3 billion a year in aid and offer them an almost automatic veto on anything which criticises them at the UN, but then pretend that what they do - or do not do - in the Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem is none of Obama's business.

And this becomes especially nonsensical when Obama has pointed out that Israel's actions put the lives of American servicemen at risk.

Perhaps Israeli politicians have become so used to American Senators offering them unconditional support that they feel there is nothing untoward in their behaviour. But Barak is right when he states that it looks as if they care little for their relationship with the US.

And this president is not, as he has previously shown, going to lie down and simply take that.

They should listen to Barak.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Barak, Israel, Palestine

Israel agrees to free killer in return for soldiers' bodies

Israel agreed yesterday to free a notorious Lebanese killer and several other Hizbullah fighters in exchange for the bodies of the two Israeli soldiers whose abduction culminated in the 2006 Lebanon war.

The decision to agree to the UN-brokered deal came after six hours of intense discussion by the Israeli cabinet which voted 22-3 in favour of the exchange even though it was finally revealed that the soldiers were dead.

How shameful that Olmert will trade now for two dead bodies, when he could have traded in 2006 for the two soldiers themselves and prevented the deaths of thousands in the Israel-Lebanon war.

At the time he was too proud to do so and insisted on launching a war, a war which most of us found puzzling as it was impossible to see an attainable objective. In the end he led Israel to defeat against Hizbullah, he achieved not a single war objective, he got none of his prisoners back, he killed thousands of Lebanese civilians and caused billions of dollars worth of damage to Beirut . And in the last few days of the war, he dropped thousands of cluster bombs, at the very time that he knew that a civilian population would soon be returning to their homes.

In any just society, ruled by international law, he should be in jail for what he did.

After the war, his approval rate in Israel hovered at around 3%, a rate that made George Bush look popular. Now that he has done this deal, a deal which was always open to him at the time, his approval rate deserves to fall even lower.

Thousands died because this man was too proud then to accept the deal that he agreeing to today. That's simply shameful.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Olmert, Israel, Israel-Lebanon war, prisoner exchange

Israel seeks Lebanon talks after Gaza pact

Having already established a ceasefire with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Israel are now making overtures towards Lebanon:

The overture appears to have been encouraged by the US administration and comes after indirect talks between Israel and Syria were recently restarted for the first time in eight years. The approach to Lebanon may indicate that an agreement is close at hand with the Lebanese group Hizbullah over the return of two Israeli soldiers captured at the start of the 2006 Lebanon war and who are now feared dead.

Israel is reportedly ready to release some Lebanese prisoners in return.

I said at the the time of the Israel-Lebanon war that I thought Israel's behaviour in launching the war was disgraceful, especially as we all knew one day she would do the very thing she was refusing to do at the time of the war.

The country that Hariri rebuilt, against all the odds, after years of civil war and after a twenty year Israeli occupation, is being systematically torn to pieces. It's bridges, it's power plants, it's roads, it's buildings, it's airport, are all being levelled. Even the viaduct has been broken.

Beirut, the "Paris of the East", is being reduced to rubble.

And for what? For what?

When all this rampant, disgraceful destruction is over, the Israelis will still have to carry out their prisoner swap if they want their soldiers returned.

And now it comes to pass. Israel is prepared to hand over prisoners in exchange for it's soldiers. What a crime that Olmert did not do so in the beginning when he would have gotten back two living beings rather than the corpses of the two soldiers, which is all he will get if the rumours of their deaths are true.

And what a crime that Olmert visited such devastation upon Beirut rather than do then what he is prepared to do now.

Make no mistake, Olmert committed the war crime of collective punishment when he rained bombs down upon the heads of a civilian population who had nothing to do with the kidnap of these two Israeli soldiers, and he did so for the simple reason that he was too proud then to do what he is doing now.

More than 1,200 Lebanese died because of Olmert's actions and 119 Israeli soldiers and 43 of Israel's citizens died for the very same reason. Olmert wasn't willing to accept political reality, he thought he could bomb an innocent civilian population and force Hizbullah to hand these men over.

He failed. And his failure destroyed the lives of far too many Israelis and Lebanese.

So, I am pleased that Israel is making these overtures towards Lebanon, and I am deeply angered and saddened that it has taken Olmert so long, and cost so many people so much, for him to come to his senses.

And, whilst welcoming the fact that, dead or alive, the two Israeli soldiers are likely to be returned; let us never forget young Gilad Shalit, the young Israeli soldier whose kidnap in Gaza started this whole awful chain of events which resulted in Olmert and Bush's needless war.

Gilad appears to have been airbrushed out of this period of Israeli history, but I remember him. We should all remember Gilad and continue to hope for his safe release.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, Ehud Goldwasser, Ehud Olmert, Israel, Lebanon, Hizbullah

Return of soldiers' remains greets release of Hizbullah spy

Israel released a suspected Hizbullah spy yesterday and, in return, received the remains of Israeli soldiers, sparking speculation that even more exchanges are on the way; with the most obvious candidate being the young Israeli soldier whose kidnap in Gaza was quickly followed by the kidnap of two other Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese border, ostensibly, starting the Israel-Lebanon war. That young soldier was named Gilad Shalit.

Ehud Olmert invaded Lebanon and the Gaza strip in an effort to find Gilad and the two other Israeli soldiers whilst refusing to engage in the kind of prisoner swap which Israel routinely indulges in.

I said at the the time that I thought Israel's behaviour was disgraceful, especially as we all knew one day she would do the very thing she was refusing to do at the time of the war.

The country that Hariri rebuilt, against all the odds, after years of civil war and after a twenty year Israeli occupation, is being systematically torn to pieces. It's bridges, it's power plants, it's roads, it's buildings, it's airport, are all being levelled. Even the viaduct has been broken.

Beirut, the "Paris of the East", is being reduced to rubble.

And for what? For what?

When all this rampant, disgraceful destruction is over, the Israelis will still have to carry out their prisoner swap if they want their soldiers returned.

And now, having brought about billions of dollars worth of damage in Lebanon, and killing God knows how many people, Ehud Olmert is arranging the same prisoner swap which was on offer two years ago.

Had he embarked on this course then, the Israel-Lebanon war - which he lost - would never have had to be fought. It's the final proof, were any more needed, of how unfit he is to hold his office.

Israel freed a convicted Hizbullah spy yesterday and received what was believed to be the remains of Israeli soldiers in return, sparking speculation of a bigger prisoner exchange between the enemies.

Nassim Nisr, the son of a Jewish mother and Lebanese Muslim father who migrated to Israel as an adult and became a citizen, was deported by Israeli security officials after serving a six-year sentence for passing information to the Iranian-backed militia.

Israeli security officials delivered Nisr to the Red Cross and the UN, who ushered him across the border to a hero's welcome in the Lebanese border town of Naqoura, where a Hizbullah official told the crowd it had released the remains of Israeli soldiers.

Of course, Israel is denying that what we are witnessing is a swap of any kind.

Israel said it was surprised by the gesture and denied it was formal trade. "At the moment we are saying nothing," a spokesman for Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said.

Israel are demanding the release of the two soldiers whose kidnap - shortly after the kidnap of Gilad Shalit - was instrumental to the invasion of Lebanon.

Israel has also been demanding the return of two soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, whose capture by Hizbullah in July 2006 culminated in the outbreak of war, but the militia has refused to reveal whether they are still alive.

I am slightly appalled that Gilad Shalit is not even mentioned in this article, but I've written before about how this young man has been erased from the storyline of this particular period of Israeli history.

Thousands of people died and millions of pounds worth of damage was done to Lebanon's infrastructure to ensure the return of Eldad Regev, Ehud Goldwasser and Gilad Shalit.

And now, finally, after all that unnecessary mayhem, Olmert, at last appears to be doing the deal. Israel may be denying that a deal is being done but the Europeans are making noises which confirm that negotiations are taking place.

While Israel played down suggestions of a larger deal, the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who has been mediating between the parties, said: "I am happy that preliminary steps were taken in that direction and hope that this creates a positive dynamic, building mutual trust."

However, even whilst this swap is being arranged, young Gilad Shalit has been, once again, removed from the narrative.

The war, which was ostensibly to guarantee his rescue, eventually became about destroying Hizbullah, and it's original objectives were forgotten. As I said at the time:

It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that, if the goal of this operation is to ensure the rescue of kidnapped soldiers, then it is time for a rethink. The mission is not going to plan.

But the mission has changed, the original reasoning has been discarded, the aims of the war are now the complete destruction of Hizbullah.

And, with that change of mission, young Gilad Shalit lies, like a thrown away photograph, floating down a gutter.

But I remember Gilad.

The mother of Ehud Goldwasser has recently condemned Olmert for refusing to "pay the price" to secure her son's release and the father of Gilad Shalit has been reduced to asking people to send his son 21st birthday cards via the United Nations.

Now, at long last, Israel appears to be willing to do a deal to secure the rescue of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. It's a deal they should have done two years ago before so many needlessly died.

And, once again, young Gilad Shalit has dropped out of the narrative.

But I remember Gilad. And so should you. And we should all never forget how many died because Olmert refused to do then what he is doing now.

Click title for full article.

UPDATE:

We must also not forget the influence of the neo-cons in this war.



Nor will anyone who witnessed it ever forget this classic exchange.

Tags: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, Ehud Goldwasser, Ehud Olmert, Israel, Lebanon, Hizbullah

US businessman says he gave Olmert $150,000 in cash-stuffed envelopes

We have been hearing for weeks that there are corruption allegations against Ehud Olmert which the press were gagged against making public.

Yesterday, in Israel, Morris Talansky, a long-time supporter and friend of Olmert, was interviewed in an Israeli court before he left for the US in case he never returned. This good friend of Olmert told of how he used to supply the Israeli PM with envelopes stuffed with cash, a practice which he claims Olmert always insisted upon.

Talansky testified that Olmert asked for money in cash. When Talansky asked why it could not be given in cheques, he said Olmert told him it was down to internal regulations in his political party, which was then the rightwing Likud party. "I didn't really grasp it," Talansky said.

He said he saw Olmert as a politician who could reach out to the Jewish community in the US. "That's why I supported the man. That's why I overlooked, frankly and honestly, a lot of things," Talansky said. "I overlooked them. Maybe I shouldn't have, but I overlooked them."

Moshe Lador, the state prosecutor, asked Talansky what disturbed him. "Cash disturbed me," Talansky replied. "I couldn't understand it and I accepted the answer simply because I saw something bigger, hopefully, out there."

Talansky has gone as far as to suggest that some of this money was used to finance Olmert's own lifestyle, although this is unproven.

Talansky said he suspected some of the money he gave went on Olmert's personal expenses. "I only know that he loved expensive cigars. I know he loved pens, watches," he said. Yet Talansky insisted he received no personal gain.

"I had a very close relationship with him but I wish to add at this time that the relationship of 15 years was purely of admiration. I never expected anything personally. I never had any personal benefits from this relationship whatsoever," he said.

The Israeli press are already pronouncing Olmert to be dead in the water. Ha'aretz are saying that Olmert is finished:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's lawyers are right: According to the law, it is not at all clear whether there is something illegal in Olmert's dealings with his own private bank, the "Talansky Bank." It is certainly worth waiting for the cross examination on July 17. It is likely to reveal contradictions about the sums of money, or to refute a story or two like the luxurious family vacation in Italy, which Olmert's attorneys claim never happened.

But no cross examination, no matter how brilliant and effective it may be, will save the politician Ehud Olmert. It will not polish his image nor remove the stench rising from the description of his relationship with Talansky. It will never return Olmert to the days before the investigation.

Publicly, Olmert is finished. There is no going back.

It simply appalls me that Olmert could bomb Lebanon into the dark ages for a crime that the Lebanese did not commit, he could watch his personal popularity drop in the polls to around 3%, and yet still survive as the Israeli PM, but any whiff of financial scandal and he is suddenly finished.

I personally think the crimes he committed in Lebanon are of much greater significance than the charge of taking money in envelopes, and I worry about any system where the taking of money is regarded as more shocking than the killing of innocents through the dropping of thousands of cluster bombs at a time when the UN were negotiating a peace settlement.

And yet that's where we find ourselves. Olmert is on the brink of being brought down for financial avarice rather than for his war crimes. Money is regarded as more important than the lives of innocents. It's a strange, strange, old world.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Ehud Olmert, Morris Talansky, Israel, Israel-Lebanon war, financial scandal, cluster bombs

Donahue takes on Hannity.

Hannity really is as thick as a post. The mindset he displays here is breathtaking. He is arguing that we must invade in case the other side do something. These nutters turn international law on it's head. And they do so on the back of a war of preemption in which they were found to be 100% wrong on each of the reasons they gave to justify the invasion.

And facts are considered irrelevant. When Donahue points out that the US supplied Saddam with his weapons, Hannity responds with the usual, "You're going to blame America?"

Facts have now become unpatriotic.

As Donahue points out, this argument is no longer about winning, it's about saving the face of old men in Washington.

Tags: Sean Hannity, Phil Donahue, Iraq war, Ahmadinejad, preemptive war

Scores killed in raids on Gaza

The Israelis killed 60 Palestinians yesterday, almost half of them civilians, as part of her response to the rocket attack which killed a 44 year old Israeli in the town of Sderot last week. Since that attack 80 Palestinians have been killed.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called on both sides to halt the violence.

"While recognising Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children," said Mr Ban.

"I call on Israel to cease such attacks.

"I condemn Palestinian rocket attacks and call for the immediate cessation of such acts of terrorism."

Libya has drafted a resolution condemning Israel but, as it does not mention the Palestinian rocket attacks, it is not expected to survive the American veto.

"There is a clear distinction between terrorist rocket attacks that target civilians and action in self-defence," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

The clearest distinction between the two is in the sheer number of people killed. The Palestinian rocket attacks are far less successful at killing people than the Israeli air strikes in response, which we are told are not aimed at killing civilians, even though about thirty civilians were killed yesterday alone.

It does not help that Israel's deputy defence minister, Matan Vilnai, has promised that the Palestinians would experience a "Holocaust" if the rocket attacks did not cease.

Meanwhile, Israel was accused of ratcheting up its policy of obstructing Palestinian patients requiring care outside Gaza - despite a ruling by Israel's high court 'that even total criminals have a right to medical care'.

Officially, Israel permits hundreds of Palestinians through each month for medical treatment. But beneath that fact, The Observer has established, lies a secretive and increasingly harsh system of judging who is allowed to pass through the main Erez checkpoint by the security officials of Israel's Shin Bet.

The system, Palestinian medical professionals claim, has already caused the premature deaths of a number of Palestinians. And, amid increasing criticism of Israel for its 'collective punishment' of Gazans, this issue has become emblematic of Israel's harsh attitude.

This "disproportionate and excessive use of force" is being used at a time when Hamas are offering a ceasefire and a majority of Israelis want their government to negotiate with them.

But, as always appears to be the case with Olmert's government, they prefer starving the Palestinians into submission and launching air strikes - whilst refusing them medical care - rather than negotiating with them.

It's a spectacularly non-productive policy, especially if one remembers that the Lebanon war of eighteen months ago and it's parallel invasion of Gaza was ostensibly to secure the release of Gilad Shalit and two other Israeli soldiers. Eighteen months later young Mr Shalit and the two other Israeli soldiers are still not free and Beirut lies in ruins. Thousands died in Lebanon and all because Ehud Olmert chose to launch an invasion rather than to engage in a prisoner exchange.

And now, with 64% of Israelis wanting him to negotiate with Hamas - especially if it will result in the release of young Gilad - he is repeating the same mistakes made prior to the Lebanon war and thinking that force alone will get him what he wants.

According to the findings, Israelis are fed up with seven years of Qassam rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza, as well as the fact that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half.

An increasing number of public figures, including senior officers in the Israel Defense Forces' reserves, have expressed similar positions on talks with Hamas.

But Olmert is simply offering more of the same tired and failed policies which he employed when he took Israel into an unwinnable war in Lebanon. Of course, in Gaza he is not facing Hizbullah so he is unlikely to suffer the kind of bloody nose which he earned during that conflict, but it is also highly unlikely that this orgy of violence will do anything to prevent rocket attacks or secure the release of any Israeli soldiers.

I've said it before but the Israeli populace are showing an understanding of what is needed which far outstrips that of their political leadership.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Ehud Olmert, Gilad Shalit, Lebanon, Hamas, Hizbullah

Condoleezza's Legacy

There's a great article here by John Taylor that highlights just what a disaster Condaleeza Rice has been and how harshly history will remember her time in office.

The person who could have been expected to question the administration's rush to war against Iraq actually became no more than a mouthpiece justifying the invasion.

Condi Rice was an uncritical advocate of the Iraq war. As national security adviser she had the power and responsibility to investigate weak and contradictory intelligence that alleged Saddam's regime was seeking weapons of mass destruction and had an operational relationship with al-Qaeda. She did not do so. Her dealings with Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George Tenet show she valued consensus over truth. A determinedly uncurious Rice was a willing participant in the administration's pro-war rhetoric. She used her intellect not to sort truth from falsehood, but to terrify the American people with cute and clever phrasing: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

She has sought at all times to defend the administration, even when her defence has been simply absurd and unbelievable.

Not only had Rice been in the forefront of Bush administration officials making the bogus case for invading Iraq, but she refused to acknowledge her share of responsibility for failure to stop the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. In testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Rice stated she could not recall an "emergency" meeting with CIA Director George Tenet in July 2001 in which he highlighted the al-Qaeda threat. She also claimed, in an assertion that appears absurd on its face, that the president's daily brief of Aug. 6, 2001, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States," contained no meaningful warnings. Conveniently enough, that brief still remains classified.

Taylor reminds us of how Rice applauded the immoral Israeli attack on Lebanon by stating that what we were witnessing were "the birth pangs of a new Middle East". And, as she called for the Palestinian elections which resulted in the election of Hamas and the subsequent starving of the Palestinian people for making the wrong electoral choice, he reminds us that the real message the US is sending to the Middle East is: I'm a strong advocate of democracy; just make sure you elect people acceptable to Israel and the United States, if you want to eat.

But the best example of Condi's absurd logic comes from the fact that she routinely condemns Syria and praises the "progress" which she is witnessing in Iraq.

Since the start of the troop surge in February the number of internally displaced Iraqis has jumped from half a million to 1.5 million, while the number of Iraqis who have fled to surrounding countries, primarily Syria, has reached 2.5 million. Rice routinely denounces Syria as a "police state" on the "wrong side of history," a "barrier to change in the Middle East." Does she find it ironic that a million-plus Iraqis prefer to live under a socialist dictatorship in Syria instead of the liberal democracy she helped create in Iraq? No, Rice doesn't do irony; she can't and maintain a debased State Department as an integral part of the administration's spin machine.

One wonders just how many Syrians and other Arabs are anxious for the United States to bring freedom and democracy to them. Most people are not keen to pack a suitcase, leave everything else behind, and run for their lives. Four million displaced Iraqis represent 15 percent of the country's prewar population of 27 million. The equivalent figure for the United States would be 45 million displaced. The number of Iraqis who have fled their homes reveals, better than any other fact or statistic, the scope of the disaster that has befallen Iraq since the American invasion. This immense human suffering will be Condi Rice's legacy.

Rice has never had an independent thought in her life. She has gained her positions through her willingness to spout, literally, whatever crap needed to be said on any particular day.

The fact that she could shamelessly claim that a report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" was not a serious warning that bin Laden intended to attack within the United States, should have made her a national laughing stock.

But, in partisan Bush Washington circles, her shamelessness was actually judged to be a badge of honour in the same way as Gonzales humiliating himself in front of a Congressional hearing was thought to be a fine example of an employee willing to take a bullet for the boss.

It is this Mafioso like mentality which has ensured the success of people like Gonzales and Condi.

Loyalty to Bush - and a willingness to state that black is white in the face of public ridicule - have become badges of honour amongst this weak and deeply dishonourable regime.

History will judge Condi harshly, but not nearly so harshly as it will judge her bosses.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Condaleeza Rice, Iran, Iraq war, Israel-Lebanon war, 9-11

Israel claim Syria had nuclear materials.

There is a rather startling report in today's London Times which claims that Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month.

The report quotes unnamed "informed sources" within Washington and Jerusalem. One would think that if Israel actually had such concrete proof of Syria and North Korea colluding in such material that they would not be relying on anonymous "informed sources" to let us know what was actually going on and would be holding press conferences to show the world why they had behaved in the way that they have.

The very fact that we have to rely on such sources makes me very suspicious that we are actually being fed a line here. The Israeli government, with the exception of Bibi, have gone uncharacteristically quiet on this subject and appear happy to let "informed sources" carry the company line whilst offering no proof to back up these assertions.

Meanwhile at United Nations, Tehran upped the ante by calling for UN inspectors to be sent into Israel to check for nuclear weapons:

Iranian delegate Ail Asghar Soltanieh _ like Arab delegates before him _ said Friday that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had acknowledged last year that his country possessed nuclear weapons _ something Olmert says he never did.

Soltanieh also criticized "the continuous silence of the U.S. ... vis a vis the atrocities, aggression, bloodshed and violations of over 30 resolutions of the United Nations.''

That, he said, is "shameful and (a) dark point in the history of the United Nations, and the IAEA and the modern century at large.''

In turn, Israeli delegate Israel Michaeli alluded to claims that Olmert acknowledged Israel's nuclear weapons, saying, some previous speakers "continued to lie.''

"Those who call for the elimination of Israel have no moral standing when they criticize Israeli policies aimed at defending Israel's very existence,'' Michaeli said.

Soltanieh, in response, challenged the IAEA to send its inspectors into the country "to verify who is telling the truth.''

And, of course, the US approved "nuclear ambiguity" of the Israelis points up the hypocrisy of the US/Israeli horror at other nations in the Middle East attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.

And Israel Michaeli's claims that people are lying when they state that Olmert admitted that Israel was a nuclear power, really is asking that we suspend all disbelief. Here is what Olmert said:

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?"

Of course, Tehran's demands that Israel be subject to the same level of nuclear inspections as we demand of them will be deemed irresponsible talk. The blather of madmen.

However, the whole argument about Tehran's wish to acquire a nuclear weapon cannot seriously be resolved until we decide whether or not we are serious about our commitments under the NNPT. Our side of the bargain is that we will disarm as long as other powers desist from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Israel's "nuclear ambiguity" is only the most obvious example of our hypocrisy. Blair recommissioning Trident and Bush developing a new range of "bunker busting" nuclear weapons are another two examples which spring to mind, where we demand others obey a treaty which we ourselves are in blatant violation of.

In the meantime, Israel feels that she only has to send out "informed sources" to talk of Syrian nuclear materials in order to justify an Israeli incursion into Syrian territory.

But just imagine reversing that. Imagine what would happen if the Syrians had invaded Israeli airspace and bombed suspected Israeli nuclear sites?

It's unimaginable isn't it? A bit like imagining there would ever be a day when UN inspectors would be allowed to wander through Dimona.

"Do as we say, not as we do" appears to be our official policy when it comes to the nuclear issue. And we wonder why we find ourselves in our current situation vis a vis Iran?

Click title for full article.

Tags: Israel, Syria, Iran, Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, NNPT

Olmert cuts energy to Gaza Strip in reply to rocket fire

Ehud Olmert has said that he will cut electricity and fuel supplies to the Gaza Strip in response to rocket fire.

After his disgraceful campaign in Lebanon, a campaign which I believe made him a war criminal, I am not remotely surprised to find Olmert, once again, employing collective punishment against a people who have nothing to do with the crime he seeks retaliation for.

The idea that Olmert can punish all the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in this way for the actions of the few who fire rockets is simply repugnant.

But, once again, Olmert will employ collective punishment with impunity.

I wonder what the reaction would be if the Arab nations found some way to cut off all fuel supplies to the people of Israel? There would, rightly, be serious condemnation and outcry from all over the world.

But when it comes to Palestine, Israel's supporters almost refuse to see the Palestinians as human. They are certainly incredibly casual about how much punishment should be meted out to these people simply for the crime of being born a Palestinian.

The decision is another step in a process which began last month when the Israeli cabinet decided against a full-scale military invasion of Gaza but to examine ways of cutting utility supplies. The cabinet decided yesterday against cutting water supplies.

I think we are supposed to applaud the Olmert government's great humanity at deciding not to cut off the water supply. I actually find it astonishing that this is something that reasonable people would even consider cutting off.

Condi Rice, who is in Middle East in an attempt to start serious talks about a solution, has stated:

Invited to say whether she backed the move at a news conference yesterday, Ms Rice did not answer directly, but affirmed: "Hamas is a hostile entity to the United States as well." She added: "We will not abandon the innocent Palestinians in Gaza, and indeed will make every effort to deal with their humanitarian needs."

Quite how one does this whilst cutting off their energy supplies was a point which dear little Condi did not elaborate upon.

Click title for full article.

The Middle East doesn't need Blair

Ian Williams covers the same issue as Fisk covered yesterday, The nightmare thought of Blair as the international community's envoy to the Middle East.

In response to a news story, Tony Snow, Bush's spokesman, denied that Tony Blair was being considered for a position of special representative for the Middle East quartet. So, based on Snow's record for obscuring issues, it must be true.

It would be the final epitaph for a quartet that has already proven to be a quadruple diplomatic paraplegic.

To be fair, Blair does realize the primacy of the Israel-Palestinian issue for peace in the region. It is indeed the blockage in the regional U-bend that needs clearing before any other issues there can be seriously addressed.

But knowing what the problem is, does not translate into knowing the solution, let alone being the solution. He has tried to tell George W. Bush this repeatedly - but with clearly limited success.

Blair has consistently done whatever Bush wanted him to do. When he took British forces into Iraq, it was with clear knowledge of the ineptitude of the White House but he nursed the fond illusion that his support would give him a hand on the steering wheel - and then he found that runaway trains do not have steering capacity, and no working brakes either.

His behaviour since he forced Robin Cook out of the foreign office follows a similar track, of coupling his wagon to the runaway Bush train. Once upon a time, even during the Reagan era, Margaret Thatcher had no compunction in having Britain vote with the rest of the world against the US on Middle East issues. Since Blair chopped Cook, on any occasion when the US has vetoed a resolution in the UN security council, British diplomats have abstained.

In the EU, that has translated into tacit support for the American-Israeli positions. Diplomats from countries like Germany complain that even when Israeli depredations horrify them, they cannot be more critical of Israel than the British. That has shifted the formerly even-handed EU consensus into the American camp.

The invertebracy of the EU has, as UN Envoy Alvaro de Soto demonstrated, helped the UN fall into the American-Israeli line. That accounts for three legs of the quartet and has left the Russians, who no longer really have a dog in the fight, as the half-hearted hold-outs, making the quartet a fig leaf for American positions.

But consider also Blair's personal position. One of the reasons he is leaving office is that he accepted the fund raising talents of Lord Levy, whose imaginative dangling of peerages for pounds attracted the attention of Scotland Yard. One should remember that his lordship was originally enticed to finance Blair's leadership campaign with the promise that it would be good for Israel for him to do so. And in return Blair made him Britain's special envoy for the Middle East.

When it came to the Lebanon war last year, Blair stood alongside with the US and Israel in resisting a ceasefire for a month during which millions of cluster bombs rained down on Southern Lebanon.He not only backed the wrong side in moral terms, he backed the losing side. This does not augur well for his announced career path.

It has been reported that Abbas has accepted Blair's nomination. That would be the beleaguered president of Palestine whose party lost the legislative elections and has accepted Israeli and American aid to oust the victors.

Blair has shown consistently that he has no influence with the White House on any important issue and will not even try to influence the Israelis. In the unlikely event that he has a blank cheque from the White House, he could do something useful. But it looks much more like the White House tossing him a diplomatic dime because there are vestigial memories of him doing them an occasional good service.

Click title for source.

Tags: Tony Blair, The Middle East, Bush, Iraq war, Israel, Palestine, the Israel Lebanon war

Pope urges Mid-East peace talks

It's amazing that someone who plays to the fact that he sees himself as a man of God seems to have so much difficulty getting on with God's representative here on Earth. President Bush's meeting today with Pope Benedict XVI was described by the Vatican as "cordial", which I presume is Vatican-speak for "it went down like a cup of cold sick".

Of course, Bush may have a hard time getting on with Pope's because God is always sending Bush contradictory signals. For instance, before the Iraq war Bush told the world that he had consulted with his "other Father", which was widely thought to be implying that he felt that by invading Iraq he was in some way "doing God's work".

Then God, ever the mischief maker, only went and told the Pope John Paul II the exact opposite and urged him to publicly call for Bush not to invade Iraq. Of course, the notion of Papal infallibility was lost on "The Decider" who decided to ignore the Pope and plough on into Iraq anyway. And, as we all know, that war went so swimmingly that God had obviously marked Bush's card in advance. One nil to "The Decider". Early bath for the Pope.

So, with that victory ringing in his ears Bush swept off to the Vatican yesterday to no doubt explain to another confused Pope why "The Decider" is actually the infallible one.

The Pope obviously hadn't read up or sufficiently prepared for his meeting because he told Bush that he would like to see a "regional and negotiated" solution to Mid-East conflicts. Oh, how Bush must have rolled his eyes when that old Turkey came back on the table. Where has the Pope been?

Negotiate with terrorists? He's obviously been talking to James Baker and that Iraq Survey Group crowd. Terrorist sympathisers to a man.

Also, had the Pope really been infallible he would have known that, under the Bush administration, there has been less negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians than at any other time in recent history. "God gave Israel the land" no doubt went through Bush's head but he probably decided it would be impolite to point out the Pope's lack of knowledge over scripture.

"The worrying situation in Iraq and the critical situation of the Christian community there" were among issues discussed along with "the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian question and Lebanon," the Vatican said in a statement.

Having only discovered that there were such things as Sunnis and Shi'ias in Iraq, Bush must have thought his head was going to explode when informed that there are also Christians there. "But then, the Pope didn't even know God gave Israel all that land" Bush must have pondered, before deciding that the Pope was talking rot.

Thankfully, they soon moved on to foetus' and Jesus where Bush is on much stronger, more "Pope-like" ground.

The two men also discussed "ethical and religious issues" including human rights and freedom of religion, "the defence and promotion of life, marriage and the family, the education of new generations and sustainable development," it said.

Bush will have been happy to end on a high note and drag his ass out of there.

It's so strange that both Bush and Blair, who both say they are strongly religious, find it so hard to get along with Pope's. And the last two have hardly been left wing loons, they've both been as solidly right wing as you can get.

And yet, Bush always seem to find himself on the wrong side of God's representative on Earth. Bush should ask God to have a word.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Pope Benedict XVI, John Paul II. President Bush, Iraq war

Olmert's strange message to Syria.

The recent comments from Ehud Olmert are confusing to say the least:

"Israel does not want war with Syria and we need to be careful to avoid a scenario of miscalculations that could cause the security situation to worsen," Mr Olmert was quoted as saying after meeting ministers and intelligence chiefs. "I'm willing to negotiate directly with the Syrians, but without preconditions," he said, adding that his message about Israel's peaceful intentions had been conveyed to Syria.

Why is he saying this? We all know that George Bush wanted him to expand his war with Hizbullah last summer to include Iran and Syria and that he wisely resisted the neo-con calls, so why does he need at this point in time to say that he doesn't want war with Syria?

Perhaps Olmert's message is actually intended for Washington rather than Damascus, as there have been persistent rumours that a back channel has existed between the Israelis and the Syrians via Turkey, and we all know that Cheney and the hard right wing of the American administration would probably not favour any kind of peace deal between Israel and one of Bush and Co's enemies.

However, I am still puzzled by talk that Syria may be preparing to attack Israel. Where has that come from? After all, the Syrians signed up to the Arab peace plan at the recent Riyadh summit, which affirmed peace as the "strategic option" for all Arab states. So why would Israeli defence intelligence chiefs be giving reports that Syria might be planning to snatch one of the five still inhabited villages in the Golan heights to "shake the status quo".

Nothing would give the Americans a better opportunity to attack Syria than if they were to launch an aggressive war against Israel, so I fail to see why anyone would think Assad sees this as a viable option.

On Tuesday the Israeli army held a publicised exercise in the Negev desert that included the "capture" of a Syrian village, reportedly applying lessons learned during last summer's three-week war against Hizbullah in Lebanon.

But Amir Peretz, Israel's defence minister, said: "We have to relay to the Syrians that our exercises and preparations are a matter of course and in no way reflect Israeli plans to attack Syria."

I should think that if Olmert learned any lesson from his misadventure in Lebanon last summer it is that he's not very good at warfare and should avoid it wherever possible. And, again, Olmert's popularity is so low at this point that launching another war would finish him off, so why is he even bothering to make these kind of public pronouncements?

I understand that his intelligence community are sending him mixed signals over Syrian intentions vis a vis peace talks, but find it hard to believe that he is being seriously advised that the Syrians are preparing for war.

The Israeli intelligence community is reportedly divided over whether the recent Syrian peace overtures are genuine or a decoy to relieve the US-led international pressure on Damascus.

While the head of the army intelligence research department Yossi Baidatz believes Damascus's moves are sincere, the head of the Mossad secret service Meir Dagan thinks they are a scheme, media have reported.

Other Israeli experts suggest Mr Assad is interested in pursuing peace with Israel as a way of improving his fraught relations with the US. The theory is that that could help to derail the UN tribunal being set up to try suspects in the February 2005 murder of Rafiq al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, in which senior Syrian security officials have been implicated.

The Mossad intelligence service is said to doubt that Syria would be prepared to drop its support for Hamas and for Hizbullah in Lebanon - both Israel's sworn enemies - let alone end its strategic relationship with Iran. Mr Muallem repeated that Syria was committed to a "comprehensive peace" that would have to include a settlement with both Lebanon and the Palestinians, whose cause is genuinely popular among ordinary Syrians.

Here's my problem with the Israeli negotiating technique, they insist that Syria first end it's support for Hamas and Hizbullah and then end it's strategic support for Iran. Asking Syria to end it strategic support for Iran is like the Syrians insisting that Israel give up it's partnership with the US, it's simply a non starter and the Israelis surely know that this is a non starter.

As for their support for Hamas and Hizbullah, Israel appears to have got the cart before the horse here. Both Hamas and Hizbullah are by-products of Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and parts of southern Lebanon. Were Israel to give up the illegal occupation there would be no further reason for these organisations to oppose Israel. However, the Israelis appear to be demanding that Syria desist from supporting organisations whose aims Syria must share. After all, Syria is in exactly the same boat as those organisations, they have all had land illegally occupied by Israel. So it's a non starter to ask that Syria cut herself off from organisations that share her aims before any discussions can take place.

Israeli commentators have been urging Mr Olmert to explore the Syrian track since he scrapped the planned unilateral withdrawal from a large part of the West Bank. Dan Meridor, a former Likud minister, told the Guardian: "Syria under Assad is a state that can make a deal. When he says he wants to talk it's a mistake not to. If it's a bluff, let's call their bluff. If we don't test it we won't know."

Meridor is of course right. Israel should talk to Syria. But if the Israelis are going to first insist that Syria give up support for Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran then the talks will go nowhere.

Israel is attempting here to pick off it's enemies one at a time rather than take on the whole deal offered through the Riyadh summit. Olmert could redeem his hellish premiership if he has the boldness to engage with the entire Arab world and finally comply with international law by adopting the demands of resolution 242.

But talk of war between Israel and Syria is, at this point, simply fanciful. Neither has the stomach for it, so perhaps Olmert is raising the subject as a bluff of his own in an attempt to get send Assad a message before any talks can take place. However, if the message also includes a demand that Syria desert her allies then Olmert is wasting his time.

Click title for full article.

Israeli PM risks losing office as coalition partner begins leader poll

Ehud Olmert's problems look set to multiply as the Israeli Labour Party seek a new leader.

The two leading contenders to take the party's helm from Peretz have said that they will work to get rid of Mr Olmert, who has been under intense pressure following a damning report into his prosecution of last year's war in Lebanon. Labour is part of the ruling coalition along with Mr Olmert's Kadima party.

Peretz, who is also tainted by the debacle of the war in Lebanon, has said he will stand down as Defence Minister after the primaries, which will leave Olmert spectacularly exposed. Olmert's managing to cling to office for this long is already astonishing, but if a new Labour leader makes it is aim to unseat the Prime Minister it is very hard to imagine how Olmert could possibly survive, especially as his poll numbers say his job approval amongst Israelis currently stands between 2-3%. Allowing for errors in the polling numbers that could put him as low as 0%.

Opinion polls suggest that Ami Ayalon, a former head of the Shin Bet internal security service, will win but may not get the required 40% of the vote to avoid a second round of voting. Ehud Barak, a former prime minister, is second with Mr Peretz a distant third.

If there is no clear winner, a second count of the Labour Party's 104,000 members will take place on June 13. An opinion poll published in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth said Mr Ayalon would win a second round with 49% to Mr Barak's 39%.

If Labour leaves the coalition Olmert will be left running a minority government with 59 out of 120 seats in the Knesset. He would then have to try and make a deal with United Torah Judaism, the party of the Ashkenazi ultra-orthodox, or even the Likud party. Either way, Olmert would have to sacrifice political principle to remain in office. Luckily for Olmert, political principle is something he long ago stopped pretending to have, the best example of this being his decision to invite the fascist Avigdor Lieberman to join his cabinet as Deputy Prime Minister.

It is moves like this that have managed to keep Olmert in power but one can't help thinking that he is now running out of places to hide.

Whatever the result of the primary, it will lead to an extended bout of horse-trading as Mr Olmert will try to offer a high enough price to the new leader to encourage him to stay in the government and continue supporting him.

Shmuel Sandlar, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, said that whatever the result, Mr Olmert did not have much to look forward to.

"The worst case for Olmert is an Ayalon victory. He must ask Olmert to resign and the Kadima party may be more interested in the survival of the party than the survival of the prime minister," he said.

And all of this is because Olmert chose to go to war rather than to agree to a prisoner exchange, an exchange that he will still have to make if he wants to have his soldiers returned.

He tried to prove that he was as militarily competent as Ariel Sharon and only succeeded in making himself look clueless and Israel looking weak. I do honestly find it astonishing that almost a year after the Israeli-Lebanon war that this man is still in office at all.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Israel, Olmert, Israel-Lebanon war, Kadima Party, Ayalon, Peretz, Barak

Most Palestinians killed in Israeli raids were civilians, Amnesty says

During last years military bombardment of Gaza, Israeli Security Forces killed more than 320 Palestinian civilians, a threefold increase on the previous year according to Amnesty International. During this same year 21 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian militants, the lowest annual figure since the beginning of the second intifada in 2000.

The human rights group's 2007 report says that over half of the more than 650 Palestinians killed in 2006 were civilians, 120 of them children and young people under 18. Amnesty defines civilians, "as people that are reasonably supposed never to have been involved in armed operations".

While Amnesty said that dozens of Palestinians were killed in the West Bank it pointed out that most of the increase resulted from aerial and artillery bombardments in Gaza after the abduction of the Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit in late June and in response to increased Qassam rocket fire on Israel. These included, for example, the shelling of a house in the northern town of Beit Hanoun which killed 17 members of the Athamneh family.

The Israeli assault on Gaza was a war crime as it was an act of collective punishment against a group of people who had nothing to do with the kidnap of Gilad Shalit.

Indeed, it is very hard to think of any other country who would be backed by the US if they launched such a disproportionate response to one of their soldiers being kidnapped. Any other country that launched an aerial and artillery bombardment upon another over the kidnap of a soldier would almost certainly receive America's disapprobation.

Amnesty also accused soldiers and settlers of committing "serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings against Palestinians mostly with impunity". Although it said settler attacks on farmers in the West Bank had decreased, they were continuing.

It said that, at times, security forces were present at such incidents and did not intervene. It also accused the security forces of often only opening investigations after the cases had been highlighted by journalists and human rights groups.

The Israeli military said yesterday it did its utmost "to avoid harming innocent people... in contrast to terror organisations that do their utmost to harm innocent civilians".

The Israelis often make this claim which is, of course, blatant nonsense. When Olmert strewed cluster bombs over civilian areas in southern Lebanon in the last days of last summers conflict, was he "doing his utmost to avoid harming innocent people"?

Indeed, Israel made a similar claim during the war last summer which was examined by Human Rights Watch and found to be nonsense. Israel claimed that many civilians were killed because Hizbullah were hiding weapons amongst the populace and, whilst there were cases of this happening, in many, many cases of innocent's killed this was found not to be the case.

Human Rights Watch investigated some two dozen bombing incidents in Lebanon involving a third of the civilians who by then had been killed. In none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack.

How do we know? Through the same techniques we use in war zones around the world to cut through people's incentive to lie. We probed and cross-checked multiple eyewitnesses, many of whom talked openly of Hizbullah's presence elsewhere but were adamant that Hizbullah was not at the scene of the attack. We examined bombing sites for evidence of military activity such as trenches, destroyed rocket launchers and military equipment, or dead or wounded fighters. If we were unsure, we gave the IDF the benefit of the doubt.

The case of Kana shows how this works. After two Israeli missiles killed 28 civilians in a house there on July 30, the IDF initially charged that Hizbullah had been firing rockets from the vicinity of the targeted house. But Human Rights Watch investigators who visited Kana found that there had been no Hizbullah presence near the bomb site at the time of the attack. IDF sources later admitted to an Israeli military correspondent that Hizbullah wasn't shooting at all from Kana that day.

In some cases, the IDF trotted out video of Hizbullah firing rockets from a village. But it has yet to show that Hizbullah was in a civilian building or vehicle at the time of an Israeli attack that killed civilians. Blaming Hizbullah is simply not an honest explanation for why so many Lebanese civilians died. And without honest introspection, the IDF can't meet its duty and self-professed goal to do everything possible to spare civilians.

The truth is that "Israeli forces systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon".

One has to remember that the attacks on Gaza were taking place at the exact same time as Israel was bombarding Beirut, and was being conducted with the same reckless abandon. The bombardment of Gaza as a means of rescuing Gilad Shalit was not even what one could reasonably claim was a feasible policy. Indeed, there were many of us who thought the bombardment of Gaza might make it all the more likely that Gilad would be killed. It was an act of revenge upon a civilian population who had done nothing.

When one remembers the wanton destruction of last summer, the destruction of the Beirut's bridges, it's power plants, it's roads, it's buildings, it's airport, it's viaduct; one really has to wonder whether, if that level of damage had been wrought by an East European for the cause of rescuing kidnapped soldiers, if the individual who wrought such damage wouldn't be sitting in the Hague right now.

Click title for full article.

Lebanese Army and Islamists Battle for 2nd Day

Once again death walks the streets of Lebanon. We had the horrors of the Israeli invasion last summer with it's brutal bombing of Beirut, we had the nightmare of children being killed by Olmert's hastily strewn cluster bombs after the war was over, and now we have internal violence reminding us all of the brutal civil war that for fifteen years gripped Lebanon.

The Lebanese Army are now spending a second day outside a Palestinian refugee camp battling members of a radical Islamist group and raising concerns for thousands trapped inside.

Government officials said at least 60 people had been killed — 30 soldiers, 15 militants and 15 civilians — in the fighting that began when a police raid on bank robbers early Sunday escalated into one of Lebanon’s most significant security crises since the end of the civil war in 1990.

The militant group, Fatah al Islam, which is thought to have links to Al Qaeda, fired antiaircraft guns and mortars and had night vision goggles and other sophisticated equipment. The Lebanese Army does not have such gear.

Lebanese television stations reported that among the dead militants were men from Bangladesh, Yemen and other Arab countries, although the reports could not be confirmed. Security officials said some of the men wore explosive belts used by suicide bombers.

Around the outskirts of the camp, called Nahr al Bared, the scene was reminiscent of Lebanon’s civil war in the 1980s, with tanks and heavy armor rumbling past, occasionally opening fire at buildings in the camp, while snipers on rooftops fired at anything that moved inside.

It's a testament of the tinder box that Lebanon has become that all this fighting has come as the result of an attempt to arrest men accused of bank robbery. This has led to the deadliest internal fighting since the civil war which only ended in 1990.

That, of course, is the story that we are hearing. But there's another side to all of this.

This is being reported as if an attempt to arrest bank robbers has flared into something bordering on civil war. But this is ignoring the undercurrents. It's ignoring the fact that the west are attempting to shore up the government of Sionora, the same Western powers who backed Olmert has he pounded Beirut to dust have now, somehow, cast themselves as Lebanon's saviour. It's a bizarre situation indeed to watch the people who ignored his tears as he begged the world to stop Olmert's blatant collective punishment of the people of Lebanon for a crime they did not commit, now cast themselves as his partner in a war "to save democracy".

The truth is that Siniora's government is now desperately clinging to power, hanging literally by a thread, as Nasrallah and Hizbullah wait in the wings determined to take their reward for their victory over Israel, and that Bush and Co are equally determined to avoid them from obtaining it.

And caught in the middle of this tussle for power are the Palestinians, always the poor bloody Palestinians. Once again in refugee camps, reminding all of us of the horror of Sabra and Chatila, the memory of which might be the only thing that is restraining the Lebanese Army.

Bush, as always, sees the hands of outsiders. He relies on most people's ignorance of what is going on here to push his agenda. Predictably, he lays this scenario at the door of Syria.

"Extremists that are trying to topple that young democracy need to be reined in," President George Bush told the Reuters news agency. But Mr Bush, though deeply distrustful of Syria's role in Lebanon, stopped short of accusing Damascus of involvement. "I'll be guarded on making accusations until I get better information, but I will tell you there's no doubt that Syria was deeply involved in Lebanon. There's no question they're still involved," he said.

But there's another story here. It's the story of the neo-con support for Olmert's attempt to "wipe out" Hizbullah. It's the story of a war which Israel - thanks to goading from Bush and the neo-cons - entered into without a proper plan, and it's the story of a war which Israel lost.

Nasrallah and Hizbullah feel that it is time to pay the piper. Bush and Co are desperately slapping the bottom of the pond, muddying the picture so that it's impossible for anyone to actually tell what is going on here. Seeing al-Qaeda monsters and Syrian agents behind every tree.

And in the middle of this grotesque farce are the poor people of Lebanon. As is so often the case, they are the pawns in other people's chess games. And in the middle of this most recent spat, we have the Palestinian refugees, another group of people who often find themselves in the middle of other people's wars.

And as Bush has - in a rare moment of honesty - admitted, all of this is to prevent the government of Siniora from falling.

Which sort of takes for granted the answer to a larger question. Does Siniora's government deserve to stand?

When the US invaded Iraq they had enough power in the region to order the Syrians to leave Lebanon forthwith. As their power has drained down the Iraq plughole their ability to influence events in Lebanon has lessened, and their backing of Israel's insane attack upon the Lebanese last summer is the main reason that the government of Siniora now hangs over a precipice.

Both Olmert and Siniora retain office without anything that one could possibly call popular support. We do not yet know what price will be paid for the neo-con backed adventure that was last summer's Israeli-Lebanon war, but we do know that - in the interim - the immediate price will, as always, be paid by the poor people of Lebanon and the Palestinian refugees.

Click title for full article.

Thousands of Israelis rally to call for prime minister to quit over Lebanon

They say democracy represents the will of the people and yet, there are some politicians who manage to hold on to power despite huge protests against them. I'm thinking of Olmert in Israel, a man whose poll figures have been in single figures since his botched attempt to wipe out Hizbullah and rescue two kidnapped Israeli soldiers. He achieved neither and succeeded only in revealing the weakness of Israel's position when employing a traditional army against a guerilla force.

Yesterday, the protesters took to the streets of Tel Aviv in an attempt to tell Olmert that his time was up and that, if he had any sense of decency, he would simply hang up his hat. All indications are that the Olmert camp feel that they have ridden out this particular storm.

Among those gathered in Tel Aviv last night were reservist soldiers who fought in the war, relatives of some of those who died, and an array of critics of the government from the left and right wing. Ofer Winestok, 25, a student who voted for the Labour party in the last election and served in the infantry in the Lebanon war, said: "There was no leadership in this war. I saw how it was and they just reacted to what happened. The orders changed every few minutes; nobody knew what has happening or what were the targets."

He wore a T-shirt bearing a photograph of his cousin Guy Hasom, 24, an infantry soldier killed on the last day of the war. "The government needs to resign. They're not qualified to do their jobs," he said. The rally alone is unlikely to be enough to unseat Mr Olmert and his coalition government but it offered echoes of previous demonstrations of Israeli street power.

Protests in 1974, after the Yom Kippur war, eventually brought the resignation of the prime minister, Golda Meir. Tens of thousands gathered in the square in 1982 to protest against the invasion of Lebanon.

Malcolm Dash, 69, who fought in the Yom Kippur war, said: "Our government has failed, completely and utterly, and there is no room left for them. They have no plan or programme, and all they are doing is looking after their own seats. In any other nation they would have resigned by now." He said the capture of the two Israeli soldiers on July 12, which triggered last year's war, had needed a response but not a 34-day conflict. "They took us into a war when it should have been a reprisal."

Of course, Mr Dash is completely correct and is only echoing what many of us said at the time. There was never any need for a war in response to the kidnap of two Israeli soldiers. It was not only a chosen response, it was the wrong chosen response, as war was never going to be the way to achieve the kidnapped soldiers release; indeed, as I argued at the time, it was much more likely that such a step would result in the death of the soldiers before it guaranteed their release.

Olmert was, of course, not open to reason. The destruction he unleashed upon Lebanon was, in fact, criminal.

As I said at the time:

For make no mistake, what we are watching Israel do is disgusting. It's nothing less than the wanton destruction of an entire country.

The country that Hariri rebuilt, against all the odds, after years of civil war and after a twenty year Israeli occupation, is being systematically torn to pieces. It's bridges, it's power plants, it's roads, it's buildings, it's airport, are all being levelled. Even the viaduct has been broken.

Beirut, the "Paris of the East" is being reduced to rubble. And for what? For what?

When all this rampant, disgraceful destruction is over, the Israelis will still have to carry out their prisoner swap if they want their soldiers returned. Hizbullah will still be standing as a political force.

However, the damage done to Beirut will be nothing to the damage done to Israel's reputation. Or the damage done to the reputations of the leaders of the EU who stood silently by whilst war crimes were committed and said nothing.

It's taken a while, but the people of Israel have risen up against what was done in their name, if only because they realise that Olmert's actions have actually made them less safe rather than more.

Before this disgraceful war Israel was considered a superpower in the region and a power that couldn't be messed with. Olmert, by engaging in an ill thought out war with ever changing objectives, revealed Israel's weaknesses. She did not destroy Hizbullah, as Olmert had announced as his war aim, nor did she succeed in having her soldiers returned.

It was, in the eyes of many Israelis, a national humiliation. And for that, they want Olmert's head.

However, in Israel - as in the US and the UK - it appears that there is no mistake large enough to force any politician to stand down on a matter of honour.

Both Bush and Blair took their respective country's to war on what transpired to be a false prospectus. They have paid no price and both have since been re-elected. Anthony Eden had to resign in shame after Suez, Lord Carrington resigned after the Argentineans invaded the Falklands even though he had actually done nothing wrong. But he felt that, when national honour had been impugned then someone had to fall on their sword for the sake of uniting the nation.

Bush has responded to being totally wrong by declaring himself "the decider", a bizzare title to award himself when all of his decisions have proven erroneous. Perhaps what he means is that he gets to decide what reality itself is, for that certainly seems to be what he is doing when he sees progress in Iraq.

However, I don't get the feeling that Olmert will be able to avoid reality in the same way. He may have survived for the moment, but one gets the distinct feeling that his days are numbered.

Bush and Blair, however, will leave office at a time of their own choosing. That's not only unfortunate, that's an affront to democracy and accountability.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Olmert, Livni, Israel-Lebanon war, war crimes, street protest, thousands march