Downing St and Foreign Office at odds on Lebanon
Guardian:
"A rift has opened up between Downing Street and the Foreign Office over Israel's continued bombing of Lebanon and the high civilian death toll.
Tony Blair is publicly highly supportive of Israel and has declined to call for an immediate ceasefire. But some in the Foreign Office are now privately urging greater restraint by Israel amid concern that the scale of the bombardment is counter-productive, disproportionate, and undermining the political stability of the Lebanese government.
Margaret Beckett, who only became foreign secretary three months ago, is trying to straddle the divide between Downing Street and her department. But she refused to bow to intense Labour backbench pressure yesterday in the Commons either to call for an unconditional ceasefire or condemn the Israeli action as disproportionate.
The Tories for the first time condemned the Israeli actions as disproportionate.
Mrs Beckett limited herself to calling for restraint on all sides, and pointing out it would be "a pity" if Israel lost the "window of opportunity in which it can highlight to the international community the scale and nature of the danger which Israel and its people face". She added that "the government has no wish or desire for the events in Lebanon to continue for a second longer than is necessary".
Her remarks were taken to imply that the Israeli action, in response to the arrest of two Israeli soldiers and the Hizbullah rocket attacks, was necessary.
By contrast, her junior minister, Kim Howells - due to travel to the region today - was more openly critical of the Israelis, as well as Hizbullah, reflecting the mood among many British diplomats and most Labour MPs.
Mr Howells revealed the Foreign Office "had repeatedly urged Israel to act proportionately, to conform with international law and to avoid the appalling civilian deaths and suffering we are witnessing on our television screens".
He added that Louise Arbour, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, had to be taken very seriously when she said this week that the attacks on both sides could be war crimes under international law.
No 10 has given no sign that it is shifting from its support of the US position of giving Israel time to reduce Hizbullah's military capacity.
In private, the Foreign Office, which has a reputation as being traditionally pro-Arabist, is sceptical about the Israeli strategy and its impact on the wider Middle East. It regards the Israeli bombardment as partly reflecting a need by the new Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to establish his credibility as successor to the hawkish Ariel Sharon.
Reports from British representatives in Lebanon challenge whether Israel, after its initial attack, is having much impact on Hizbullah. A British official in London warned there was a danger that the civilian deaths risked alienating Arab governments that until now had refrained from condemning Israel's attacks.
Fighting flared on both sides of the border yesterday, amid signs that Israel was preparing a ground invasion. At least two Israeli soldiers and two Hizbullah fighters were killed. Later two Israeli helicopters collided six miles from the border, injuring four Israeli servicemen.
There has been an apparent policy vacuum at the Foreign Office since the conflict began last week. A Foreign Office source said: "It is difficult for the British to do anything. We cannot work out the direction of travel until we hear from the UN security council and know the intent of the US."
In the Commons, many Labour MPs were furious that the the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, was prepared to be tougher in his warning to Israel than Mrs Beckett. "I think we can say that elements of the Israeli response are disproportionate, including attacks on Lebanese army units, the loss of civilian life and essential infrastructure and such enormous damage to the capacity of the Lebanese government, [which] does damage the Israeli cause in the long term," he told MPs.
The former international development secretary, Clare Short, described the British policy as "so unbalanced, morally wrong and counter-productive and disrespectful of international law".
The former Labour Foreign Office minister Chris Mullin asked Mrs Beckett if it was not "a tiny bit shameful that we can find nothing stronger than the word 'regret' to describe the slaughter and misery and mayhem that Israel has unleashed on a fragile country like Lebanon".
The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, said: "The prime minister's uncritical acceptance of the Bush administration is not only wrong but deeply damaging to Britain's international reputation"
Lebanon Israel Tony Blair
"A rift has opened up between Downing Street and the Foreign Office over Israel's continued bombing of Lebanon and the high civilian death toll.
Tony Blair is publicly highly supportive of Israel and has declined to call for an immediate ceasefire. But some in the Foreign Office are now privately urging greater restraint by Israel amid concern that the scale of the bombardment is counter-productive, disproportionate, and undermining the political stability of the Lebanese government.
Margaret Beckett, who only became foreign secretary three months ago, is trying to straddle the divide between Downing Street and her department. But she refused to bow to intense Labour backbench pressure yesterday in the Commons either to call for an unconditional ceasefire or condemn the Israeli action as disproportionate.
The Tories for the first time condemned the Israeli actions as disproportionate.
Mrs Beckett limited herself to calling for restraint on all sides, and pointing out it would be "a pity" if Israel lost the "window of opportunity in which it can highlight to the international community the scale and nature of the danger which Israel and its people face". She added that "the government has no wish or desire for the events in Lebanon to continue for a second longer than is necessary".
Her remarks were taken to imply that the Israeli action, in response to the arrest of two Israeli soldiers and the Hizbullah rocket attacks, was necessary.
By contrast, her junior minister, Kim Howells - due to travel to the region today - was more openly critical of the Israelis, as well as Hizbullah, reflecting the mood among many British diplomats and most Labour MPs.
Mr Howells revealed the Foreign Office "had repeatedly urged Israel to act proportionately, to conform with international law and to avoid the appalling civilian deaths and suffering we are witnessing on our television screens".
He added that Louise Arbour, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, had to be taken very seriously when she said this week that the attacks on both sides could be war crimes under international law.
No 10 has given no sign that it is shifting from its support of the US position of giving Israel time to reduce Hizbullah's military capacity.
In private, the Foreign Office, which has a reputation as being traditionally pro-Arabist, is sceptical about the Israeli strategy and its impact on the wider Middle East. It regards the Israeli bombardment as partly reflecting a need by the new Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to establish his credibility as successor to the hawkish Ariel Sharon.
Reports from British representatives in Lebanon challenge whether Israel, after its initial attack, is having much impact on Hizbullah. A British official in London warned there was a danger that the civilian deaths risked alienating Arab governments that until now had refrained from condemning Israel's attacks.
Fighting flared on both sides of the border yesterday, amid signs that Israel was preparing a ground invasion. At least two Israeli soldiers and two Hizbullah fighters were killed. Later two Israeli helicopters collided six miles from the border, injuring four Israeli servicemen.
There has been an apparent policy vacuum at the Foreign Office since the conflict began last week. A Foreign Office source said: "It is difficult for the British to do anything. We cannot work out the direction of travel until we hear from the UN security council and know the intent of the US."
In the Commons, many Labour MPs were furious that the the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, was prepared to be tougher in his warning to Israel than Mrs Beckett. "I think we can say that elements of the Israeli response are disproportionate, including attacks on Lebanese army units, the loss of civilian life and essential infrastructure and such enormous damage to the capacity of the Lebanese government, [which] does damage the Israeli cause in the long term," he told MPs.
The former international development secretary, Clare Short, described the British policy as "so unbalanced, morally wrong and counter-productive and disrespectful of international law".
The former Labour Foreign Office minister Chris Mullin asked Mrs Beckett if it was not "a tiny bit shameful that we can find nothing stronger than the word 'regret' to describe the slaughter and misery and mayhem that Israel has unleashed on a fragile country like Lebanon".
The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, said: "The prime minister's uncritical acceptance of the Bush administration is not only wrong but deeply damaging to Britain's international reputation"
Lebanon Israel Tony Blair
posted by J.UL1R4 at 1:54 AM
2 Comments:
There isn't all that much of a rift, you know...
I've been following this crisis from minute to minute and it appears to me the "rift" is seriously overblown by the papers.
Right now, I'd almost wish the Man of Straw was back: Beckett simply has no experience whatsover with Foreign Policy and is no match for the Americans or the Israelis. We're likely to blindly follow where the blind lead us, at least for some time.
You mean 'they're' and not 'we're' because that band of murdering cowards does not in ANY way represent me or the majority of the British public.
Be careful with your English Gert!
Post a Comment
<< Home