Today's test
To those who said they were doing nothing while Lebanon burned, Tony Blair and George Bush produced their answer. A route map, not to an immediate ceasefire but - they hope - a permanent end to hostilities.
The prime minister will regard the president's backing for a new UN resolution, a new international stabilisation force and a renewed drive to create a Palestinian state as proof of the benefits of the relationship he's forged.
There was proof too of how close both men are in their analysis of what George Bush called "the challenge of the 21st Century". Violence, Tony Blair argued, must be ended "on the basis of clear principles". He didn't spell out what that meant but it's clear what he means. Israel and Hezbollah will not be treated as equals. Terrorism must be seen not to pay. Democratically elected governments - whether in Israel or Lebanon - must be bolstered. States that sponsor terrorism - in particular Iran and Syria - must be confronted.
The president began by promising to rebuild Lebanon - the infrastructure and the houses that the Israelis have destroyed. I asked him why, instead, he didn't call on Israel to stop destroying them. It was not a question he welcomed . That, though, is sure to be the test of today's plan - how soon and for how long does it stop the killing - not just in Lebanon, of course, but in Israel too.
I'm 
Comments
This was a cynically conceived "summit" with Balir hoping to deceive the UK audience that he is actually doing something. Nothing has really changed. Israel still has the go-ahead of the US to turn southern Lebanon into a kill-box. Blair's spin-doctors are trying to pretend that he used his influence when in fact he is happy to go along with Bush.
Why indeed does Israel not just stop bombing? So Hizbollah will contnue to fire some ramshackle missiles, which are easy to defend against. Israel will regain the moral high ground, and Hizboallah will soon run out of munition.
Or is this just possibly an exercise to project force? To say: look, this is what will happen to any other country the axis of Israel, UK, and the US judges to threaten Israel. Fighters, women, children. Even, your visitors.
If the latter is the case; what then is mass terrorism?
rebuild the bombed infrastructure and houses? good, the friends would be glad. they have the skill of rebuilding Iraq, aren"t they? but do talk some more time, mister blair and mister bush. so there can be more bombed, so there can be more rebuild. and the killed civilians, the childeren, the women?? maybe mister blair and mister bush can organising their resurrection too??
What was President Bush's answer to your question?
"It was not a question he welcomed." Nonetheless it is a very astute question. What was his exact response ?
Nick,
do you think the 'International Stabilsation Force' is a solution to the crisis
or
is the the crisis the solution to getting an 'International Stabilsation Force' in the Lebanon?
Nick is almost there. The question that Blair/Bush will not answer is why cannot we have a cease-fire now and negotiate afterwards? Who gains by the killing of more civilians?
And if the Israelis fail to crush Hizbollah?
It is depressing to see that 2 Christian men can view violence so easily.
What is worse to see though is their hypocracy in that they talk about strengthening Lebanon's democracy and rebuilding its infrastructure whilst at the same time as supporting the undermining of the first and funding the destruction of the second.
'Violence, Tony Blair argued, must be ended "on the basis of clear principles".''
''Yo'' Blair does not understand the precept of violence underlying all male principle - time for the women to take charge, perhaps? Where's our modern day Lysistrata when you need her?
So the US are going to rebuild Lebanon - more work for the US construction industry (Haliburton) then, meanwhile the US arms industry is doing well out of supplying the Israelis - so there you have it, the US economy needs a war like this to keep it going.
Also how does a route map compare to their infamous road map?
The refusal of Tony Blair to call for an immediate unconditional ceasefire has led me to finally leave the Labour Party. Enough is enough, when Tony Blair does not feel that the lifes of innocent women and children are worth saving immediately! Does Tony Blair actually have any credibility left on these issues? I urge you to keep asking those tough questions for the sake of common humanity because the politicians aren't willing to stand up and be counted.
I wonder what kind of Palestinian state George Bush envisages, given that he , Israel, and most of the West has been trying to starve the democratically elected government there into submission.
I never thought I could see Blair plumb lower depths than Iraq, but his , his governments, and Parliament's virtually silence over all this, and the transiting of arms through Britain..., have just about numbed me.
And the multiples of thousands of Palestinian prisoners without trial, hostages, in Israel?
As I can see they are just letting Isreal 'get on with it' There can be no excuse for not calling for an immediate ceasefire, they are both giving the greeen light for Isreal to cause as much damage as possible hoping that it will lesson the problems with Iraq.
One needs to be very careful that once the 'onslaught' stops that Lebanon does not end up like Iraq Bush and Blair calls democracy.
Iran will surely now be hell bent on getting that nuclear bomb, so whats going to happen there..?
The more bombs that Isreal bombs the more the West will supply them with bombs, is this 'protecting our interest' you hear Bush say time and time again.
David
Nr. Manchester
UK
Well, Mr Robinson, the truthful answer to your rather rude (you'd call it 'tough') question about who Bush wants to win is - Israel.
Now let me ask you this: who do you want to have win? And who is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ 'supporting'? By the way, "the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is neutral, we only report" is no longer acceptable. The agenda (and giving the Beeb the benefit of the doubt, may be subconscious, but its there.)
I'm sure your question must have impressed your bosses (Good old Nick, sticking it to Blair and Bush!") but it produced the worst answers from the two leaders.
JB (Atlanta, GA, USA)
(So you turn to your secretary and mutter, "a nutter from a southern US state...probably a fundamentalist Christian baby eater...pay no attention...but you are so wrong. I'm an ex-´óÏó´«Ã½ producer who is ashamed what has happened to the Corp.)
Hope that history remembers Bush and Blair as warmongers. I certainly see it that way.
Good question !
This is a President who not so long ago was sufficiently confident of his country's might and right that he (almost) single-handedly invaded Iraq with the aim of transforming it into a beacon democracy (or was that a later idea, I do get confused ?).
Now, he can't organise a ceasefire in a small part of Lebanon without everyone's agreement and the consent of the warring parties.
I don't believe the theory that he initially wanted the Israelis to defeat Hizbullah, so was delaying any ceasefire. Defeating Hizbullah would be an impossible aim. And right now, delivering a bloody nose would be an unlikely result.
Maybe George W. has discovered multilateralism, or more likely, he has had it thrust upon him. Worse, he's mislaid the levers which allow him to control it. How to cover up this little embarrassment ?
How about a new "Roadmap" ? Should get him a few months breathing space....
I asked him why, instead, he didn't call on Israel to stop destroying them. It was not a question he welcomed
What, and risk losing such a valuable mercenary to kill off all those Muslims who're all committing terrorist attacks on the United States? Don't be silly!
The US is close to Israel now, and although it's no match to the forces of the USA, it's certainly worth keeping friends with. We've seen it before with the Taleban and in Iraq where America supports a cause, later to find that they don't like America.
I should think a DMZ might be the solution, running along the line of the pre-1967 border of israel and about twenty miles wide.
That's RUNNING ALONG, not running outside, so ten miles each side.
Or maybe twenty.....
More platitudes, more hype.
A "route map"? After the so-called "road map"? Incidentally, it was the latter which both, the organ-grinder and the monkey, used to canvass support for the Irag invasion. Remember?
Like it or not, the Bush & Blair administrations' inability to pursue that "road map" from 3 years ago, is partly responsible for today's crisis.
And B & B fail to see how excluding certain parties from any further talks will only lead to a wider conflict. I can see this spreading.
Like some others, I am sending my Party card back. I wonder how many sitting (literally) Labour MPs will have the balls to do the same. None, probably.
bush was shocked at getting a real question
the us reporters throw him softballs day in and day out (except NBC's David Gregory)
The press needs to get tougher with him and "yo" blair
I have difficulty believing anything either of these say's. You learn to distrust people based on your previous experiences. I do not believe that Bush has any interest in ensuring that the needs of the Palestinian state are listened to and acted upon. The U.S has never demonstrated any wish to rein in the border expansions of the state of Israel, and I see no intention of doing so again. Israel has been in dispute with its neighbours since the U.S (and the U.N) permitted Israel to expand forcibly, and forcing the state of Israel on other nations. Until Israel retreats its' borders to an placing acceptable to its' neigbours then this dispute and its associated hatred will continue, since this is what is at its' heart.
Mr's Bush and Blair demonstrate daily they have no control over the events in their own countries, and that it is their folly to believe they have the capacity to govern other countries, AKA Iraq, what chance do they have of managing a world of diplomacy when they ignored it in favour of military might to achieve their aims. They demonstrated at the time they sent forces into Iraq the same mentality the Israelis do with its' neighbours. They believe force will prevail, always. I shall watch in hope I am wrong, but, by the age of 42 I am learning to be pessimistic with my expectations of 'so called' World leaders.
John Bosworth, I was relieved to read your insightful post. Robinson's ill mannered style of interviewing and reporting is symptomatic of a self congratulatory malaise of cynicism in the media. No political figure is really going to take such a clearly partisan figure seriously. There he sits at the front of the assemblage like a smug public schoolboy ready to let off his rhetorical stinkbomb. Sadly, reportage is increasingly more about the self aggrandising ego of the broadcast news reporter whilst gossip, speculation and cheap point scoring are paramount. Come back Andrew Marr, all is forgiven.
Nick,
I think there is a question which people might ask in east and west while thinking how genuine this proposal by Bush and Blair could be. They might ask, these two men which seems to support violence to reach a permanent peace have produced same approach (using violence as an approach but not same in nature of the conflict of course) before going into Iraq. Today, Iraq is a disaster place. People are getting killed thanks to Bush and Blair and we hope that in 50 years or so it might reach to some level of stability as it had before the war.
And the question would be: can’t Bush and Blair be wrong? After all it didn’t work out in Iraq. And it is not just that Iraqi people being not thankful to correlations but they have strong feeling against them (I don’t think hate is a right word here). Did not same two men promised to rebuild Iraq? Maybe they should try to meet the promises that they have previously made before making new ones!
IF I was living in Lebanon as a Lebanese and having a child and seeing him shaking every time by the sound a bomb and knowing that we could be the next one who get hit with one of those bombs! I would not be able to justify (at all) why two of the people who claim the human rights, how could not ask for an immediate cease-fire?! I don’t want the house that they promise to build in next 20 years but getting my child away by not pursuing a cease-fire.
How it can be justified to let civilians people to get killed in Israel and Lebanon? How war could bring any peace never mind if it is going to be permanent or not? Did not Hezbollah come into existence after the invasion of Lebanon in 1982? Maybe this war could destroy HA, but is it going to prevent the creation of similar guerrilla groups in that area?
Bush and Blair most likely realise now they cannot intervene directly, or they loose the backing which come from other big UN players. And if they go it alone on some initiative, their hands are already blood red from Iraq and Afghanistan. So their outlook as prime influencers on hearts and minds is definitely confined to proper channels.
And this now frustrates us at home, because they cannot react, they have to respond and Israel knows this. They are caught up in their own folly. We surely cannot sponsor any terrorism, we do need to define the actions all concerned so we apply the same rules across the board. One mans terror is another mans legitimate war, and this needs to be resolved in the UN I feel. And this will take what seems forever to fix as innocents die again and again.
We have all seen what the last 2 weeks have involved by way of destruction, displacement of a civilian population and civilian deaths. I haven’t been able to detect anything constructive contributed by Mr Blair even tho’ I have looked and hoped. He has focused on opposing an immediate cease fire. That inaction and its consequences, for me, has given us a ‘mirror’ and a measure of the man and his values. Becoming a 'peacemaker' at this distressingly late stage can't take that away.
Nick,
Don't you feel like we're just being thrown a new bone every day? Something to keep us distracted? We are watching innocent human beings expire in the most inhumane, deliberate and shameful way. By disease and starvation in Palestine and systematic slaughter from US weapons in Lebanon. Collective punishment of the most evil kind.
Can you ask Bush and Blair to describe what they seeing on their TV screens? If they see what I see, but still allow this horror, they are not human. But if they are not even looking, they are not fit to serve anyone.
Well done for getting that question to Bush. That sort of activity ends careers in the American press!!
But at least someone with a British accent managed to stand up and show we're not all wet blankets.
His response to your suggestion that we end destruction now and reduce the reconstruction later, was pathetic. I think he responded:
"It's too tempting just to end it [the slaughter] and get it off the TV screens, but that won't solve the problem"
Followed by this gem of wisdom....
"Because it [stopping the bombing] certainly won't help the Lebanese citizens"
Unlike his plan of supplying laser guided bunker busters to one side, endorsing human depopulation and his childish refusal to talk to all parties involved.
We know what reconstruction means. It means construction of a dozen US military bases, diversion of the nations little wealth to Haliburton/Cheney, US occupation and a puppet leader.
The question to President Bush neatly exposed the utter hypocrisy, deception and shallowness of the US/UK stance. It is a matter of fundamental humanity to take immediate action to save the lives of innocent people caught up in violence against their will.
Whilst terrorist actions against civilians are never excusable, Hezbollah exist because of historical injustices and the failure of political processes. The current terrorist actions of Israel against civilians - aided and abetted by Western interests and apathy - create worse injustices that can only fuel future terrorism.
Next time the IRA commit some outrage in Northern Ireland can we expect to see air attacks on the Falls Road area to root them out?
In reply to John Bosworth I would say that perhaps you should pay attention to what is happening in this country.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ employs tens of thousands of people, its subconcious bias is bound to, in some way, reflect that of it's employees.
In the UK Tony Blair's regime is becoming extremely unpopular. His high-handed King-like approach to premiership has started to grate. The populace at large has realised that he is a control freak. He continually drives through unpopular and expensive legislation while rewarding himself and those around him. The ´óÏó´«Ã½'s views merely reflect what everyone is thinking (a lot more accurately than the foreign owned Murdoch press is anyway).
I might add that his current Lebanon stance is making him (and the Labour party) extremely vulnerable domestically. If (or when) repercussions against UK citizens start (as they have in the US already) Labour will be doomed at the next election. This presumably is why Brown has been invisible for the last 3 weeks. Israel's actions are not popular here, even with MPs. Blair's continued implicit support of them may hasten his own downfall.
Whilst Bush talks of a long-lasting peace, his jets stop-off in Scotland on the way to delivering a deadly cargo of laser-guided weapons to one of the aggressors.
The question on everyone's lips is, how can such hypocracy be allowed to happen?
Oh, and a little more hypocracy -"the president began by promising to rebuild Lebanon" - who do we think, Mr President, my win the engineering contracts...
Short of airing our views online, what can we, the public, do?
I'm actually very proud of what Britain and the US, are trying to do in the world. We got rid of murderous regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its only us keeping the democratically elected government in Iraq from falling to thugs and fundementalsts.
Perhaps in further reports Nick might investigate the fundamental differences between George and Tony particularly their different pictures of a viable Palestinian State and if it's really necessary.
Given Olmert's plans the Palestinian State is designed not to be viable; wwould Blair agree and how can this be resolved?
All you Bush and Blair haters really need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
The reason for not immediately calling for a cease-fire is that Britain and America have a policy on dealing with so called "terrorism" worldwide (read Islamic extremism/fundamentalism in the Middle East), which in order to succeed must always override the particular circumstances of the moment - even when innocent people are losing their lives.
That might sound harsh, but it can also be seen as both practical and necessary. The point is that Syria and Iran are two very dangerous countries: they both sponsor terrorist organisations (including Hezbollah and Hamas); they are both situated in the Middle East; and they both (arguably) harbour ideologies not all that different from Al-Qaeda, whose ultimate aim is to bring about a worldwide Islamic revolution.
As Nick said:
"Israel and Hizbollah will not be treated as equals. Terrorism must be seen not to pay. Democratically elected governments - whether in Israel or Lebanon - must be bolstered. States that sponsor terrorism - in particular Iran and Syria - must be confronted."
I'm not saying that is the only approach to these problems, and it is almost certainly true that (in the short term at least) a policy like that is only going to make things worse, not better. But what they are trying to do is pre-empt a whole chain of events that they believe if left unchecked would lead to much more serious consequences in the future.
We should all recognise that democracy is not set in stone. Just because we are lucky enough to live in countries where we are (largely) safe and able to live our lives with (some degree of) freedom, does not mean the sun will keep coming up tomorrow.
Just to stir things up a bit more, imagine what the situation might be if we had the current climate of fear, along with what is going on in Lebanon and Israel, the Israeli/Palestinian situation, Iran refusing to stop Uranium enrichment etc. etc. but with Sadam Hussain still in power as well...
Condoleezza Rice said of Iraq: "history will judge us on whether we made the right strategic decision". Maybe they did.
John Bosworth - I don't see where the question you claim Nick asked is in the article? You say he asked who Bush wants to win - but he in fact asked why let someone destroy something and then rebuild it. It's a good question about logic, and not a question about taking sides.
I thought Nick's blog entry was a balanced report on his view of the press conference. I don't think there is any bias.
The question has to be asked: why promise to rebuild Lebanon instead of preventing the destruction? Maybe there's a good answer. I'd also be interested to hear Bush and Blair's response.
I think your question was fine, although with Bush and Blair it may be best to keep it extremely short and to one point only, otherwise they've more waffle-room.
The problem with the format is that you can't then break in and challenge what they say. I'm sure I heard both Bush and then Blair saying that the "terrorist strategy" was to gain sympathy from world opinion. Eh? I thought it was about spreading terror?
There are worse things than terrorism, as well, such as genocide (which can be clinical or brutal but doesn't need psychological methods) or ethic cleansing, which is surely what's happened in South Lebanon. Bush/Blair tend to hold terrorism (even this new, sympathy-seeking kind) to be the highest evil. I think they need to be challenged on the points. I didn't see any clarity or righteousness in their performances, and the press should have got torn into them. Socratically-speaking, of course.
These are two drowning men, desperately clinging to each other for comfort and buoyancy. It isn't working. Both men have almost zero credibility with their electorate. Israel is an artificial idea and is unsupportable without US influence and money. 6 Million Jews should be offered homes in the USA. This would save a lot more bloodshed and expense for everyone. The nations surrounding Israel will never accept its existence and this isn't helped by the USA paying for arms. I am no lover of these regimes in Syria and Iran, but they are what their people's want. The middle east is like Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and until they have all finished killing each other for another 300 to 400 years there will be no political stability.
Part of me wants to believe Blair has his heart in the right place. Unfortunately his colleagues in the UK have done so much to turn our nation into "Airstrip 1" (1984 reference for those of who have not read it) that one cannot help but question his motives or intentions constantly.
Add to that the truth behind all our previous interventions around the world (one example is Kosovo) and you have to expect some unseen goal being aimed for.
I'm sure Nick Robinson also recognizes the sad fact that during yesterdays press occasion in White House not even a single question was actually welcomed. There were no real answers to journalists questions, there only was a general cenario for keeping the face in a most uncomfortable political situation.
While following the occasion from ´óÏó´«Ã½ I was anxioulsy waiting for someone to come up with next question a'la "Mr President, if I may just repeat the question as I have a strong feeling there was no real answer to it in your previous passage..."
But of course, it never happened. And in the current situation of global hypocracy I wonder if it can ever happen at all. Is there any chance at all that someone among the press would actually try to embarrass the leaders in a press occasion? Is the first and utmost duty of worlds press to be polite? Or is it something else?
"It was not a question he welcomed."
From the footage I saw, it appears he did not welcome the question because he was totally incapable of answering it. As far as I recall the answer that he gave was totally unrelated to your (very valid) question and proved yet again that the President is coherent and eloquent only when reading a press release prepared for him by someone else.
Perhaps that's not entirely fair. I'm sure that ridiculous joke he made at the beginning of the statement was his idea. Who else would start a speech about easing violence and suffering in another country with a light hearted joke about his own embarrassment?
I'm not sure what is more disgusting and terrifying: that the leader of arguably the most powerful country in the world is obviously ignorant as to what is going on and unable to justify or defend the decisions he's made unless he's reading it off a card, or that the supposedly educated leader of our country is so much more interested in keeping up his "special relationship" with the President that he disregards the wishes of his own country and government.
After a good start with an independent viewpoint sad to say your recent broadcasts and utterings generally show how quickly you have gone native. Word is that Blair like you around because you no longer
are quite so incisive and are regared us "one of us "
Your not alone Andrew Marr was the same and so was Robin Oakley. John Cole didnt succumb tues. Thats since no one could understand him !!!
Also this nonsense of newscasters interviewing colleages is out of hand. The bizarre Huw Edwards in his best suit no tie in Lebonon talking to Ben Brown quizzing Jeremy Bowen all trying to look like war correspondents why IS Edwards there at public expense . Then you talk to him over there why ?? The point is that you are losing your cred with all the matiness. Do you really think you put Bush out ? Some say you did but he batted you away easily.
Sorry lets hope the next Editor shows more gumption.
The Middle East has baffled diplomats, politicians, its inhabitants and pretty well everyone else for at least a century. Isn't it curious that so many people (including many who comment on your site and some journalists) apparently believe that:
a) the British PM and US President could solve it all with a few well chosen words,
and/or
b) that it's all their fault!
What a simple world of goodies and badies such people must think we inhabit......
To Anonymos, who wrote: "Imagine what the situation might be if we had the current climate of fear..." Good point! This is exactly what seems to be the ultimate goal of all these "strategically thinking" warheads like B&B, Condi & Co. - to keep the world in fear. Until it lasts, everything will do for the "protection of democracy" and "anti-terrorism".
History will judge not only them, but you as well - for your fear.
John Bosworth - It's a bit rude to say that Nick is a bit rude for something that didn't really happen.
You state "I'm an ex-´óÏó´«Ã½ producer who is ashamed what has happened to the Corp"
Well I am a current ´óÏó´«Ã½ license payer who is happy I'm no longer paying your wages (only kidding !!)
David Bannan - Iraq and Afghanistan have benefited from the US/UK as much as Whitechapel 'working girls' benefitted from Jack the ripper.
You're surely aware that Iraq has over 100 murders a day, has massive unemployment, lacks basic services like clean water and reliable power and is divided along tribal and ethnic lines?
Democracy doesn't work at gunpoint. Sunni vote Sunni, Shia for Shia, Kurd for Kurd. Warlords make sure people conform or else.
Iraq was a secular, unarmed weak nation, free from all terrorist groups.
When we leave it'll be a hard-line Islamic state, armed by America, combat trained by America & a breeding ground for anti-western terrorists.
Afghanistan is worse. We've simply razed it to the ground, let international drug lords increase heroin production by 1500% and made the Taliban stronger.
I hate being negative, but it's how I see it.
"Democratically elected governments - whether in Israel or Lebanon - must be bolstered. States that sponsor terrorism - in particular Iran and Syria - must be confronted."
Um, where does this leave Ulster's elected government being atttacked by the IRA, sponsored by the US? Is that different?
Nick,
I hadn't properly appreciated you before I read the transcript of your questions at that White House press conference, and saw how assiduously you blogged the entire trip with the PM.
Many here won't appreciate how you have to be impartial in your reporting if you are to be in a position to report at that level at all. Whilst at the same time you are allowed, and hopefully expected to ask pointed questions. I guess this blog is to some extent intended to assist you in framing and putting those questions. Questions you are officially enabled to ask to some degree on behalf of everyone so that we may judge the answers, or lack of them.
Your questions to Bush and Blair were, I thought, brilliant, and I think others here should have the chance to see them [courtesy www.rawstory.com] in full:-
Q Nick Robinson, ´óÏó´«Ã½ News. Mr. President, you spoke of having a plan to rebuild houses in Lebanon. Wouldn't the people of Lebanon rather know when you're going to tell the Israelis to stop destroying houses?
And, Prime Minister, you've talked of having a plan today. But isn't the truth that you and the president believe that Israel is on the right side in the war on terror and you want them to win this war, not to stop it?
To my mind they didn't answer any of that, as they failed to answer most of the questions, so that one reporter even felt forced to remind Bush that his hadn't been answered.
I get the impression you felt they thought they had answered them. Reading their words repeatedly the quality of the obviously off-the-cuff language and thought processing says to me that they had some simple rules in mind, things they mustn't say, mustn't promise, and didn't really hear much that they couldn't relate to those. Those unfortunately were what the world is most concerned about, and what most of the questions were about, and so they were the elephants at the table: immediate action to stop the deaths and destruction, anything like criticism of or pressure upon Israel, and escalation of hostilities. Not addressing those, as elephants on the table always do, made the two men look mentally disabled, which, given who they are, and how their intervention on the side of humanity is needed, is very disturbing. Your reporting of that is very diplomatic, but doesn't dispel the disquiet. Which is proper.
I am puzzled by one of your blog assertions though, wondering if it came from off-the-record briefings. Violence, Tony Blair argued, must be ended "on the basis of clear principles". He didn't spell out what that meant but it's clear what he means. Israel and Hizbollah will not be treated as equals. Terrorism must be seen not to pay. Democratically elected governments - whether in Israel or Lebanon - must be bolstered. States that sponsor terrorism - in particular Iran and Syria - must be confronted.
The PM would have to be very short-sighted to mean any of those, as you write them.
Israel and Hezbollah not equal, but how about Israel and Lebanon, and Israel and the Palestinians?
Hezbollah's terrorism (or liberation efforts) not to pay, whereas the terrorism of 60 years ago (the King David Hotel bombing anniversary was this month) was allowed to, big time? Why are Israel's atrocities in Lebanon and Gaza, or the Israeli / US / UK "Shock and Awe" in Iraq not classed as terror? Is it that classification as terrorism comes from who is in the ascendent at the time and, in the everlasting, tribal / religiously-based struggles of the Middle-East the spin is to make out that the present ascendancy is permanent? How did the UK, after washing it's hands of the competing aspirations and rights of Palestine in 1948 and thus knowing so well that nothing there is permanent, get to be so sucked back on to just the one side? Even when the refusal of other parties in the Middle-East ever to accept permanent defeat is so obvious? Is the PM's reading of history that Attlee's Labour government should not have accepted being bombed out of Palestine. That we should instead have backed the terrorists of that time?
Democratically elected governments - whether in Israel or Lebanon - must be bolstered, but not Gaza's? And why does Israel's system, from which all it's conquered Palestinians are excluded, amongst many others, count as that much more democratic than Iran's, where voters are not restricted, but candidates were, in the last (recent) election, again on religious grounds? And how does solidly backing Israel bolster the governments of Egypt, Turkey, or any Muslim country, against fundamentalist or anti-western pressures?
States that sponsor terrorism - in particular Iran and Syria - must be confronted. Which prevents violence how? After the US performance in Iraq, and Israel's in Lebanon and Gaza, the level of fear and tension amongst the residents of Iran (especially those living near the thoroughly embedded nuclear research sites) and Syria must be immense. Or doesn't the break down of civil peace and order count as violence? I guess we shouldn't mention how much terror the US and Israel have sponsored, considering the Taliban, South and Central American death squads, Iraq against Iran, the Christian militias in southern Lebanon, etc.. I don't see either foreswearing such actions.
When is the next opportunity to penetrate their unreality? With such a crisis will the PM's vacation spots be doorstepped this year? Foreign Affairs and world security have never been the Deputy PM's things, although the rights of ordinary human beings have. How were his shipboard days, his Ruskin days, and his contacts with the Israeli Labour Party, on the human right of civilians not to be bombed, or the Middle East? Who else is there around? Where is Kim Howells, the only one to have actually seen the destroyed homes, now, for example?
A violent means is not nescerally the wrong means, lets not be Neville Chamberlins, Israel's been too soft on Hizbulla an now they are paying the price for letting the terrorists collect munitions, they need to root out Hizbulla once and for all, Civilians will die, but the situation is not that bad, as Israel has made sure neutral civilians have had enough time to get out of the Hizbulla zones and Israel is now sending in its own troops to add more accuary to it's attacks, at it's own risk.
What right does the world have to blindly call for the conflict to end, this conflict is nessercary for longer term peace, admitidly not permenent though.
Remember Israel was attacked, all its doing is neutralising it's attackers.
I've just seen (on News 24) the interview you did with Tony Blair in San Francisco. You can be quite Rottweiler, when you feel like it, can't you, Nick?
Thanks to your penetrating questions, the PM came across as hopelessly contradictory. He signally failed to offer any reason why he hasn't called for a ceasefire. Of course everyone wants a permanent peace (whether it needs a UN force to enforce it or not) but surely there is no harm in asking both sides to stop the violence until proper peace talks can begin.
I hear that Israel is unwilling to stop the bombing even for humanitarian corridors to be cleared. I cannot understand the tactical reasons for this. To win the war of terrorirsm, one must first win the propaganda war. If the IDF stopped killing innocent civilians (even for a few days) and the world saw Hezbollah continue shelling, then perhaps the rest of the world might start feeling some sympathy for Israel. While the Jewish state continues to act like a bully (with tacit support from Bush and Blair) it will continue to be criticised by the UN.
I know that Israel said it started its action in order to rescue the kidnapped soldiers and to punish the cuprits, but what is the longer term plan? I'm starting to think that Israel actually desires a war involving Syria and Iran. Does the UK have anything to gain from that? The answer is at the petrol pump.
Your question was excellent.
And to those crying "foul" because it made that pathetic excuse for a man squirm I say this: answer it.
"I asked him why, instead, he didn't call on Israel to stop destroying them."
Maybe because he knows that the reason for it is because Hezbollah members hide in those houses.
Show some impartiality instead of your relentless anti-Israel agenda. Oh sure, you and your colleagues may say you get complaints about a pro-Israel bias but they never provide any concrete examples, whereas those complaining about an anti-Israel bias provide lots of examples.
Why is supplying Hezbollah or Palestine with weapons "sponsoring terrorism", but supplying precision guided weapons targeted on UN observers is "a route map to the permanent end of hostilities"?
Nick, I now realise why Bush and Blair occupy such high office and the rest of us can only marvel at their wisdom. Here's me, thinking that the best way to stop the killing in Israel and Lebanon would be for there to be an immediate cease fire. In fact it turns out that the solution is much more complicated than that and could only have been thought up by two people with the combined intellectual capacity of a cornflake.
Their idea is to keep the fighting going until there is no one left to kill - brilliant!!!... What a pair of morons.
Oh dear. A ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalist asks (in my view) a fair question, politely. Just because it is a targeted question - as opposed to those from the assembled sycophants from both sides of the pond - he is suddenly branded rude & unprofessional.
Lesson: Next time take an apple for the teacher, Nick ! And for any ex-producers you may bump into.
I think NIck's question revealed more about the ´óÏó´«Ã½ than American policy.
Imagine if the IRA had 13,000 missiles lining the East coast of Ireland pointing at British cities and that the Irish governement did nothing to prevent them.
Why not ask why the ´óÏó´«Ã½, like many other news outlets did virtually no reporting on the non implementation of the UN resolution about disarming Hezbollah?
Easy to grandstand on worldwide television Nick.
Nick, my respect for you grew after that question to Pres Bush. He was clearly seething you had asked him that maybe the Lebaneese want destruction of their homes to stop rather than promises to rebuild them.
Excellent, I thought as per some blog sites you had no 'balls', but clearly you do. Keep it up.
Rebuild Lebanon?
More lucrative work for Haliburton.
John Kirk wrote:
"The nations surrounding Israel will never accept its existence and this isn't helped by the USA paying for arms. I am no lover of these regimes in Syria and Iran, but they are what their people's want."
How on earth do you know what these people want? Even their own governments do not ask them. You may not love these regimes but you are an apologist for them.
"I am no lover of these regimes in Syria and Iran, but they are what their people's want."
I'm not sure that's true. But even if it is, the question should really be are they what we want?
There are many people in the Middle East who want to turn that whole region into one big Islamic Dictatorship. (These people are not moderates.) Do you think they will stop there, if we let them get that far? Why do you think there is so much concern about Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons? Why did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say "Israel should be wiped off the map"?
Nick
I am so relieved that TB thinks he can resolve the Lebanon problem.
What about the ones he's left behind him here?
Perhaps they are of little consequence to a man on a mission to secure his next job.
We should ask ourselves what we would expect our government to do if terrorists established themselves in residential areas in northern France started sending rockets into southern Engaland and the French government was unable to stop them. Would those who call for a cease fire by Israel say that the government should do nothing because innocent French civilians would be injured? Would they expect England to sacrifice its own civilians to spare the French civilians? A democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own civilians to those of an aggressor. Blair is right. You cannot expect Israel to cease unless hizbolah does also
So, the man who helped bring us Sinn Fein ministers of Health and Education in Northern Ireland now tells us that 'Terrorism must not be seen to pay'; yet another example of the Prime Minister's infinitely flexible principles.
To reply 31 - I voted for Blair so I'm not a Blair-hater, I just happen to disagree with him a lot lately.
As someone said, did we start raining the bombs down on Falls Road every time the IRA bombed some part of the UK?
Lebanon and the people are separate entities from Hezbollah and any Israeli action that punishes the people of Lebanon or destabilises the Lebanon government is disproportionate and, dare I say, a war crime.
The UK and the US have indeed set precedents on this front. Invading Iraq, which was a secular and sovereign nation, first to disarm (from what?), then because of the terrorist training camps in Iraq (Saddam actively persecuted Al Qa'eda - these claims were laughable) and then to spread 'freedom'. I'm not saying action in Iraq was wrong - justification and the unilateral manner in which it was pursued was wrong. Israel is following the leader.
Our hands are infinitely more bloodied than Israel’s. The only real solution to these things is the inclusion of a UN PEACE-KEEPING force, not direct military conflict which only deepens any divides between the sides and which serves to destabilise institutions we should be trying to use in international aims. For this to happen we need an immediate ceasefire, I don't care what Bush and Blair say - they are wrong. In fact, out of all the member nations in the UN there are only three countries which do not agree with this - USA, UK and Israel.
The Lebanese government is correct in saying very recently that as soon as Israel makes steps to fulfil it's part in UN resolutions (Israel is the country in the world with the most resolutions against it) then we can look at disarming Hezbollah (an organisation which sprung up through Israel's violation of UN resolutions). They're also correct to say Ms Rice is not welcome for diplomatic talks as the USA is consistently the vetoing holding nation that allows Israel to flout international will and UN resolutions.
Let us not forget the grave situation in the Gaza Strip at the moment, either.
Nick
Will you be accompanying the Prime Minister to Bohemian Grove for some owl-burning?
It is rather strange to refer to prisoners of war as hostages because the Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah are exactly that, PoWs. There has been a war between Lebanon and Israel for decades. Why is there no pressure on Israel to release the thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli gaols, many of them without trial or the slightest notion of why they are being detained, an alarmingly high number of whom are children or teenagers under the age of 18. Any loss of civilian life is tragic but to suggest Israeli lives are more valuable than Lebanese is nothing short of fascism and apartheid, which is what Bush and Blair's actions in their refusal to call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire imply. Mr Bush has said he will build new homes in Lebanon to replace those destroyed by constant Israeli aerial, sea and land bombardments. Is he also going to clone new families, or children for those who have lost loved-ones in the relentless, deliberate and indiscriminate bombing of Lebanese civilians or does he merely intend to reincarnate the dead!
In this post you use the phrase "Terrorism must not be seen to pay" not as a quote from Bush or Blair but as your editorialising. This is surely not in conformance with ´óÏó´«Ã½ guidelines. I didn't think you were encouraged to use the term unless as a clear direct quote. If terrorism is the threat or use of violence against non-combatants then both sides are using terrorism but one side seems to be working on a more industrial scale than the other.
Bush and Blair may well rebuild Lebanon, with all the contracts going to Haliburton and co. They cannot put broken bodies back together, though.
A few people in the thread above have questioned Nick Robinson's "cynical" line of questioning. I won't claim that Nick's questions have not been cynical. Instead, I would ask the complainers how they would deal with politicians like Bush and Blair. The leaders of the "Free world" are utterly cynical in their pursuit of their own selfish policies. Their cynicism can only be met with more of the same. May I remind readers that Blair did not fly to America to discuss a peace plan. He flew there to meet with Rupert Murdoch, presumably to try and persuade him to get his newspapers to give him an easy ride in his final months. People that were democratically elected SHOULD be reminded what their electors voted for. We did not vote for war.
Hezbollah is a militia that has insinuated itself into a weak Lebanon that cannot (or will not) evict them. Imagine the IRA, for example, in Wales and Scotland raining hundreds of rockets on England every day.
What would you do ?
I'd fight back and if some those hosting the IRA got hurt, too bad.
I heartily agree with John Bosworth. When will ´óÏó´«Ã½ interviewers actually start treating the protagonists appropriately. One side who actually initiated the current crisis, namely Hizbollah, is a murderous regime with an acute hatred of Jews, Christians and democracy and would destroy the only Jewish state (there are 28 Islamic States)is sponsored by governments who openly call for the destruction of Israel - namely Iran and Syria and who, in the case of Iran hang homosexuals and young girls for perceived infractions of their medieval chastity laws. The other is a pleuralistic, secular state - namely Israel, 20% of whose population are Israeli Arabs with more rights than their Arab bretheren in Arab States. Israel, unlike the surrounding regimes in the Area, has democratically elected Arab members of Parliament, has Arab judges on the Supreme Court, upholds the rights for all citizens to practice their religions unfettered and is the ONLY Middle East State to support the rights of homosexuals to be free of persecution. Please can you see to it that your questions in future reflect these facts.
Let's not blame it all on the route map makers.
The British Labour Party has no integrity left - allowing their murderous, lying government to continue to brazen out oppressive policies both within the UK and affecting the rest of the world.
Mr Robinson you may have added when you put your question to Bush that the destruction of Lebanon and the slaughter of innocent civilians is being done with bombs and weapons that are "made in the USA"
The basic issue here is what is Bush's "strategy" for the Middle East? (forget Blair, he has no influence on Bush, but then neither has Congress or the Senate). Bush, and his far-right wing cabel, fascists really, wish for nothing more than a complete capitulation of all arab countries to American control. The situation in Lebanon is in fact exactly what Bush wants to see, hence his opposition to a ceasefire, indeed his encouragement of Israel, and his direct support with more weapons. More chaos is fine, that is why he is oblivious to the chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq. In particular Bush wants to deal with two more "Axis of Evil" countries, Iran and Syria. An inflaming of Arab sentiment, and possible more direct involvement of either Syria or Iran will see them both dealt with severly, the deserts will glow with depleted uranium, and Bush has not excluded a nuclear assault on Iran.
You have to undertand who Bush is. A man of poor intellect, with a personality disorder of the psychopathic type, possibly drinking again, and a fundamentalist Christian who literally believes in Armageddon. He is a very dangerous man playing a very dangerous game, and he, and his cabal, have to be stopped. And as other postings to this site have indicated, complicit in this is the media, who's inability to ask the right questions and demand the appropriate answers is an appalling abrogation of what should be their functioning in a democracy, and why we now find ourselves in this horrible violent mess.
stan_expat, if the IRA were raining in bombs to England from Scotland and Wales I would hope it would be sorted out internally. Scotland and Wales are part of the United Kingdom, a democratic union that includes England. The armed forces of the United Kingdom has bases throughout Scotland and Wales and ground action would certainly be the only option - not raining missles into Glasgow or Cardiff city centre.
People should stop simplyfying the conflict, especially in such a bad way.
Over this Middle East crisis I've had a terrible sense of deja vue. In the 1980s I was ashamed to be British during Mrs Thatcher's protection of apartheid. I am now doubly appalled as a lifelong Labour Party member and voter at the immoral approach taken by Tony Blair to Israel's actions in Lebanon. I am now ashamed to be British again
Keith Blackburn wrote: "In the 1980s I was ashamed to be British during Mrs Thatcher's protection of apartheid"
I too loathed Thatchers policies regards South Africa, but I do not see that YOU or mandela have done anything decent for the women facing a life time of AIDS and HIV. Why do you liberals not address this(or Darfur, Sudan, Rwanda etc) was this part of your "liberal" plan? Therefore I cannot take your stance on lebanon seriously either.Do you REALLY want the best for these people or have you found a new political weapon to weed out any government that does not comply with your view on world issues. You have no legs to stand on when criticising Blair or Bush, you are complicit to to same tactics. Hypocrisy lives.