The ill judged approach relating to Lebanon seems to be heating up the temperature in the Middle East. Rockets have landed in Syria (probably in error), there has been a march of potential suicide bombers in Baghdad. The Lebanese media are calling for unity against the Israelis.
In Iraq it is the Sadr supporters that are particularly vocal, but even the Iraqi government has made its views known.
The Sunni governments, however, are still relatively moderate in their comments.
There is an interesting difference between recalling the House of Commons and recalling the House of Lords to consider the UK approach to all of this. To recall the House of Commons requires action from the government to call for it. Recalling the House of Lords can be done by the Lord Speaker in consultation with the government - it does not require effective permission from the government.
In many ways, however, the debate a couple of weeks ago covered the key issue - the government confirmed that they did not want an unconditional ceasefire.
Syria has made it clear that they do not support a force to disarm Hizbollah. I am not sure that the Lebanese population would support this at the moment. That would cause any peacekeeping force a problem.
I presume John Prescott's thumbs have been taped up so he cannot press the nuclear Button whilst his boss goes on holiday. I wonder, however, if could actually do a worse job relating to Foreign Affairs than Tony Blair. Tony Blair's record: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon ... what next.
In Iraq it is the Sadr supporters that are particularly vocal, but even the Iraqi government has made its views known.
The Sunni governments, however, are still relatively moderate in their comments.
There is an interesting difference between recalling the House of Commons and recalling the House of Lords to consider the UK approach to all of this. To recall the House of Commons requires action from the government to call for it. Recalling the House of Lords can be done by the Lord Speaker in consultation with the government - it does not require effective permission from the government.
In many ways, however, the debate a couple of weeks ago covered the key issue - the government confirmed that they did not want an unconditional ceasefire.
Syria has made it clear that they do not support a force to disarm Hizbollah. I am not sure that the Lebanese population would support this at the moment. That would cause any peacekeeping force a problem.
I presume John Prescott's thumbs have been taped up so he cannot press the nuclear Button whilst his boss goes on holiday. I wonder, however, if could actually do a worse job relating to Foreign Affairs than Tony Blair. Tony Blair's record: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon ... what next.
Comments
Such organisations which can involve unjust "acts of terror" against others also often provide substantial social support.
The Mafia have been known to operate in similar ways in Sicily.
There is a whole spectrum of organisations and many organisations have elements of social support.
There are similarities between Hizbollah and Sinn Fein. Hizbollah does not, as far as I know, rob any banks.
There is an image of a US missile system involving first attacking people then offering support which makes the same point.
I'm not sure what the comment regarding Afghanistan is supposed to mean. Last time I checked, there was considerable international support for the actions in Afghanistan and also cross-party backing in the UK - even Ming is behind the operations. Or would the Hemming approach have left the vicious fundamentalist government in power in Kabul?