It is a move apparently designed to demonstrate his evenhandedness following weeks of intense criticism within Britain of his apparent bias towards Israel.

Under a heavy media grilling at his monthly press conference, Blair attempted to fend off claims that he is taking a one-sided approach to the conflict, insisting that he had been working all along for a cease-fire and that he stood in "complete solidarity" with the Lebanese people.

"Please don't misunderstand me about this," he pleaded. "Any sentient human being could not fail to be moved by what they see, the suffering and death."

While he once again refused to condemn the scale of Israel's offensive against Lebanon, he maintained he was simply refraining from doing so because "the solution will not come by condemning one side, it will not come simply by statements we make."

He could "perfectly easily" call for a bilateral cease-fire now, but without the agreement of both Hezbollah and Israel, "all we're doing is just expressing a view, we're not actually getting the job done," he said.

But critics of his policy say this argument does not withstand scrutiny, as Blair has in fact repeatedly called on Hezbollah -- but not Israel -- to halt its military campaign, and has laid the blame for the conflict firmly at the door of the militia group.

Some 900 Lebanese people, mostly civilians, have been killed in the three-week conflict, while 3,000 have been injured and around 1 million displaced, Siniora said Thursday. The latest Israeli casualties bring its death toll to 62, including 24 civilians.

Blair attempted to allay anxieties about the delay in securing a cease-fire, saying he believed a United Nations resolution would be ready within days, at which point both sides should lay down their arms and work towards a permanent settlement.

In an apparent bid to reposition himself as an honest broker -- following suggestions that his pro-American approach to foreign policy makes him unsuitable for such a role -- Blair laid his stall firmly behind the Lebanese prime minister's plan for resolving the conflict.

Siniora's seven point plan calls for a mutual release of prisoners held by both Israeli authorities and Hezbollah and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. Israel would also withdraw from the occupied territory of Shebaa Farms, which would be placed under temporary U.N. control. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government would take control of all of southern Lebanon with the help of an international force. The plan also provides for a reinvigoration of the 1949 Armistice Agreement and reconstruction of southern Lebanon.

Blair said that this, along with a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis laid down in the Road Map, would address the underlying issues in the region and reduce the potential for renewed violence.

The British leader has become profoundly aware of the divisions that his position on the conflict has created within the government and Parliament, and is clearly desperate to dispel the perception that he has metamorphosed into a pro-Israeli hawk.

He acknowledged that there were fundamental disagreements within his Cabinet, the Labor Party and the country over the direction of his policy, saying such anxieties were unsurprising in the light of so much human suffering.

However, his delay in explicitly calling for a cease-fire was "nothing to do" with giving a green light to Israel to attack Hezbollah, he said.

He had been working hard behind the scenes to try and secure a practical solution, he said. "My job is to try to bring it to an end, and you don't bring it to an end unless you've got a plan to do so."

But while Blair is correct in his contention that calls for a cease-fire are purely rhetorical without a plan to implement it, his analysis of the conflict's causes is somewhat muddled.

On the one hand, he acknowledges that the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is at the root of the regional tensions; on the other, however, he characterizes the objectives of Hamas and Hezbollah -- and by extension their backers in Syria and Iran -- as part of the same attack on Western values as that waged by al-Qaida and other related groups.

In this assessment, he is aligning himself with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who told the BBC Thursday that Hamas and Hezbollah were attacking Israel "because we are you (the West.)"

Blair said Hezbollah had provoked the conflict in order to undermine efforts towards peace and democracy and boost extremism just as insurgents in Iraq were doing. It was "exactly the same as the violence all across the Middle East," he added.

But to many, this assessment is over-simplistic and fails to take into account the nationalistic and territorial imperatives of Hamas and Hezbollah.

"Tony Blair's characterization of the conflict as one between terror and liberty is a gross oversimplification," Liberal Democrat Leader Sir Menzies Campbell said.

Richard Burden, a Labor member of the parliamentary International Development Committee, raised similar concerns in a letter to Blair Wednesday.

"Hamas is not the same as Hezbollah and neither of them are the same as al-Qaida," he wrote. "All have been responsible for some appalling actions over the years. But they have different objectives, different outlooks and they have grown up in different circumstances. You don't have to have sympathy with any of them to understand the importance of this."

He warned: "The theory that there is some kind of undifferentiated worldwide Islamic terrorist conspiracy is simply wrong and it plays into the hands of the likes of Osama bin Laden, who really does want to ferment worldwide conflict between Islam and the West."

Burden urged Blair to demonstrate his supposed even-handedness by calling clearly for a cease-fire on both sides and for the implementation not only of U.N. resolutions on Lebanon, but also the numerous resolutions which Israel continued to violate.

While words alone mean little without substantive action, Blair must realize the importance of such a gesture to the battle for hearts and minds, which he himself maintains is central to defeating extremism.

If he continues to fail to do so, he has little chance of maintaining the reputation as an honest broker that he so evidently covets. n of his apparent bias towards Israel.

Under a heavy media grilling at his monthly press conference, Blair attempted to fend off claims that he is taking a one-sided approach to the conflict, insisting that he had been working all along for a cease-fire and that he stood in "complete solidarity" with the Lebanese people.

"Please don't misunderstand me about this," he pleaded. "Any sentient human being could not fail to be moved by what they see, the suffering and death."

While he once again refused to condemn the scale of Israel's offensive against Lebanon, he maintained he was simply refraining from doing so because "the solution will not come by condemning one side, it will not come simply by statements we make."

He could "perfectly easily" call for a bilateral cease-fire now, but without the agreement of both Hezbollah and Israel, "all we're doing is just expressing a view, we're not actually getting the job done," he said.

But critics of his policy say this argument does not withstand scrutiny, as Blair has in fact repeatedly called on Hezbollah -- but not Israel -- to halt its military campaign, and has laid the blame for the conflict firmly at the door of the militia group.

Some 900 Lebanese people, mostly civilians, have been killed in the three-week conflict, while 3,000 have been injured and around 1 million displaced, Siniora said Thursday. The latest Israeli casualties bring its death toll to 62, including 24 civilians.

Blair attempted to allay anxieties about the delay in securing a cease-fire, saying he believed a United Nations resolution would be ready within days, at which point both sides should lay down their arms and work towards a permanent settlement.

In an apparent bid to reposition himself as an honest broker -- following suggestions that his pro-American approach to foreign policy makes him unsuitable for such a role -- Blair laid his stall firmly behind the Lebanese prime minister's plan for resolving the conflict.

Siniora's seven point plan calls for a mutual release of prisoners held by both Israeli authorities and Hezbollah and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. Israel would also withdraw from the occupied territory of Shebaa Farms, which would be placed under temporary U.N. control. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government would take control of all of southern Lebanon with the help of an international force. The plan also provides for a reinvigoration of the 1949 Armistice Agreement and reconstruction of southern Lebanon.

Blair said that this, along with a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis laid down in the Road Map, would address the underlying issues in the region and reduce the potential for renewed violence.

The British leader has become profoundly aware of the divisions that his position on the conflict has created within the government and Parliament, and is clearly desperate to dispel the perception that he has metamorphosed into a pro-Israeli hawk.

He acknowledged that there were fundamental disagreements within his Cabinet, the Labor Party and the country over the direction of his policy, saying such anxieties were unsurprising in the light of so much human suffering.

However, his delay in explicitly calling for a cease-fire was "nothing to do" with giving a green light to Israel to attack Hezbollah, he said.

He had been working hard behind the scenes to try and secure a practical solution, he said. "My job is to try to bring it to an end, and you don't bring it to an end unless you've got a plan to do so."

But while Blair is correct in his contention that calls for a cease-fire are purely rhetorical without a plan to implement it, his analysis of the conflict's causes is somewhat muddled.

On the one hand, he acknowledges that the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is at the root of the regional tensions; on the other, however, he characterizes the objectives of Hamas and Hezbollah -- and by extension their backers in Syria and Iran -- as part of the same attack on Western values as that waged by al-Qaida and other related groups.

In this assessment, he is aligning himself with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who told the BBC Thursday that Hamas and Hezbollah were attacking Israel "because we are you (the West.)"

Blair said Hezbollah had provoked the conflict in order to undermine efforts towards peace and democracy and boost extremism just as insurgents in Iraq were doing. It was "exactly the same as the violence all across the Middle East," he added.

But to many, this assessment is over-simplistic and fails to take into account the nationalistic and territorial imperatives of Hamas and Hezbollah.

"Tony Blair's characterization of the conflict as one between terror and liberty is a gross oversimplification," Liberal Democrat Leader Sir Menzies Campbell said.

Richard Burden, a Labor member of the parliamentary International Development Committee, raised similar concerns in a letter to Blair Wednesday.

"Hamas is not the same as Hezbollah and neither of them are the same as al-Qaida," he wrote. "All have been responsible for some appalling actions over the years. But they have different objectives, different outlooks and they have grown up in different circumstances. You don't have to have sympathy with any of them to understand the importance of this."

He warned: "The theory that there is some kind of undifferentiated worldwide Islamic terrorist conspiracy is simply wrong and it plays into the hands of the likes of Osama bin Laden, who really does want to ferment worldwide conflict between Islam and the West."

Burden urged Blair to demonstrate his supposed even-handedness by calling clearly for a cease-fire on both sides and for the implementation not only of U.N. resolutions on Lebanon, but also the numerous resolutions which Israel continued to violate.

While words alone mean little without substantive action, Blair must realize the importance of such a gesture to the battle for hearts and minds, which he himself maintains is central to defeating extremism.

If he continues to fail to do so, he has little chance of maintaining the reputation as an honest broker that he so evidently covets.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
Your World At War

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News