According John Kampfner in the
New Statesman:
I am told that the Israelis informed George W Bush in advance of their plans to "destroy" Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew. This exposes as a fraud the debate of the past week about calling for a ceasefire. Indeed, one of the reasons why negotiations failed in Rome was British obduracy. This has been a case not of turning a blind eye and failing to halt the onslaught, but of providing active support.
The Daily Mail implies the Bush Administration agreed Israeli plans in order to degrade the Hamas and Hezbollah ability to retaliate for airstrikes on Iran which are to follow when the threat to Israel is reduced.
Blair may have to resign. By failing to inform his cabinet colleagues and lying to Parliament, Blair has betrayed the principle of cabinet collective responsibility.
Already there are demands for his resignation in many papers indicating that the effort to oust Blair is now organised and underway.
From the
Daily Mail:
The claims that he knew of Israel's plans to destroy Hezbollah before the guerilla group kidnapped two Israeli soldiers are made in today's edition of the New Statesman, a respected Left-wing journal.
A Downing Street spokesman responded by saying: 'We don't recognise the story.' But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: 'If these allegations were proved to be correct they would go right to the heart of the Prime Minister's credibility and the legitimacy of his Government. Serious questions would arise about his lack of candour to Parliament.'
Mohammad Sarwar, Labour MP for Glasgow Central, said: 'There will be widespread anger among the people of Britain if our Prime Minister knew in advance what Israel was going to do.' Israel bombed southern Lebanon on July 12 in response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah fighters. But the Israelis were said to have planned a military campaign weeks before the soldiers were kidnapped.
Israel had briefed Washington about its concerns before and London was 'kept in the loop', according to one insider. MPs also seized on the revelation that Mr Blair's Middle East envoy - and chief fundraiser - Lord Levy had met senior Israeli ministers dozens of times in the run-up to the conflict.
While the controversial peer frequently meets top Middle East figures as part of his role, the contact was stepped up during June and July - revealing how close the links are between London and Tel Aviv. A senior White House source insisted President Bush was not informed in advance of Israeli actions against Hezbollah. 'Look, we don't have a green light. President Bush is in close contact with Tony Blair - but he couldn't tell Blair what he didn't know,' added the source.
But Dr John Pike, head of the Washington-based military think tank Global Security, said: 'Has the U.S. given Israel a green light to attack Hezbollah and push its troops into southern Lebanon? Yes, of course it has.'
Dr Pike said he believed there was an agreement between Israel and the U.S. that Iranian nuclear plants would eventually - probably next year - have to be bombed to stop the development of a nuclear weapon. Once that bombing takes place, Iran will order Hezbollah to attack Israel. Thus, Dr Pike claimed, the U.S. and Israel agreed in secret that at some point before the attack on the Iranian nuclear sites, Hezbollah had to be disarmed and that as soon as a pretext became available, Israel should use force.
Many of us here at DailyKos suggested that the Israeli attacks on Gaza and Lebanon were too massive to be anything but pre-planned and deliberate. For those who chose to believe that Hamas and Hezbollah instigated the current conflict, the excuses are getting tissue thin indeed.
Acting in "self defense", even as liberally interpreted as Israel has been stretching it of late, does not encompass "getting your retaliation in first". If it is true that Washington and Downing Street were informed of the attack plans weeks in advance of the capture of the Israeli soldier in Gaza and two soldiers in Lebanon, then the speculation that Israel precipitated the crisis through assassinations, arrests, the beach shelling and other acts deserves more consideration.
For Blair the game could be over before he comes home from his holiday in Barbados. Many will be meeting in wine bars and beach cabanas this holiday season to plot his removal as an act of self-preservation.
From the New Statesman:
Now, as Blair hides behind banalities about "good and evil" and the familiar, crude definitions of "terrorism", his ministers look on helplessly. They talk openly to journalists - in the "you can print it, but just don't name me" deal that is the coward's life at Westminster - of Blair's "Bush problem". Shortly before MPs left for their summer break, one senior member of the cabinet accosted me in the corridors of the Commons, and asked: "How much further up their arses do you think we can go?" I suggested that this was more up to him than to me.
At least over Iraq someone resigned. This time, ministers do nothing. Their private complaints have no moral or political value, because they will not stop Blair. Under cabinet rules of collective responsibility, they are endorsing the Israeli assault.
Blair's survival in power is no longer a game of cat-and-mouse with Gordon Brown; it is no longer a question of Labour's ability to stave off the Conservatives. It is far more serious than that.