Momentum metaphors
Andrews Air Force base, Maryland: Sure enough, on board Blairforce One we were served up a string of momentum metaphors along with our scrambled egg and sausage. The PM wants, we're told, to "increase the urgency", "to step up a gear" and to raise "the tempo" of the search for the steps to bring about a ceasefire on both sides.
That means getting George Bush to back a UN resolution next week. It would establish a new international stabilisation force, call on foreign forces to leave Lebanon and on militias to be disarmed (a repeat of resolution 1559 in other words) and, though this may not appear in the final text, a deal on prisoner exchanges.
Politically he wants George Bush to help him rebut the claim that their refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire is in reality a green light for Israel to carry on bombing Lebanon whatever the consequences.
The problem they face, though, is that this is not a claim made only by their critics. The Israeli justice minister said yesterday that that "the world told us...to continue this operation, this war, until there is no Hezbollah presence in southern Lebanon".
That belief goes to the heart of the dilemma facing the twin architects of "the war on terror". Is Israeli action a vital part of that war that should get Bush and Blair's full support? Or, given its lack of success to date, is it now merely serving as a recruiting sergeant for the enemy?
That judgment will underlie just how much momentum towards the steps towards the resolution towards a ceasefire we see tonight.
Watch the news conference. It's sure to be fascinating.
I'm 
Comments
The groundwork for the present state of the middle east was done under the British Mandate. The British Foreign Office is a nest of Arabists. With that in mind, it would be wiser for Mr. Blair and the UK to leave well alone. There will be no UK-brokered solution which is fair.
Hedgehog, it's not as if a solution brokered by the US, a nest of zionists, would be any fairer.
Honestly, what is the point of writing such puerile nonsense as "Blairforce One"? Are you trying to make more of "man travels on airplane" than is really necessary.
Come on, tell me. I really want to know.
Nick - I hope you've got a thick skin. People like Richard Evans, above, seem to think it's OK to be downright impolite. Nobody's making them read this blog. So don't be put off - I for one appreciate your lively style. And even if i didn't I hope I would have better manners than to hurl insults to someone I've never met.
The world didn't give "permission" to the US and its closest allies to go and flatten Afghanistan and Iraq, but it didn't stop them. A US spokesman actually described the Israeli claim as "outrageous", which, to me, signalled a turning of the tide.
Two thoughts occurred:
a) The US doesn't fancy a medium- to long-term conflict (with Israel calling up thousands of reservists) because the price of oil will shoot up, harming the US economy.
b) The US doesn't like any other countries (Israel included) using their own methods of fighting the war on terror. The pentagon wants total control. Israel is prepared to pursue terrorists on its own terms.
All the political leaders are really only interested in their own nations. Unlike Bush and Ohmert, Blair is (as usual) out of step with his.
Yeah. Spot on, Brian Wilkins (No 3 above).
You go for it, Nick - and also ignore any ex-producer turncoats along the way to boot.
Can someone please explain why Blair is in any way connected to whats going on between Israel and Hez Bollah ? What has Blair got to do with this nightmarish vicious circle in the middle east ?
In other words, who does Blair think he is ? I think with the pitiful state internally of the U.K,our so called Prime Minister should be HERE trying to clean up his own hopelessly ruined society, not one in the middle east.
Blair might be out-of-step with his own country, but my experience indicates he isn't that much out-of-step with his party. The idea that "traditional" Labour supporters, MP's and party workers are "up-in-arms" about the Prime Ministers obvious support for US policies and his poodle-like submissiveness in the presence of Bush is rubbish. Has anyone resigned over the issue? Nope. Has anyone mounted a leadership challenge? Nope. Have any Labour MP's signed a petition? Nope. Anyone raised the subject in Parliament? Nope.
I have dealings with Labour councillors, their agents and key party workers in my city, and without an exception everyone of them is a firm believer in Blair, Bush and US policy on virtually anything; whether it be the War on Terror, US opposition to Kyoto, immigration, NHS privatisation and the use of nuclear power. The only thing they do oppose is the ban on stem-cell research.
Don't be fooled into thinking that Labour and Blair are out-of-sync with one another. Most Labour members don't feel uncomfortable when their Leader briefs Rubert Murdoch, and would be quite happy if their annual subscription entitled them to dual membership to the US Republican Party.
FROM MOST OF THE ±«Óãtv NEWS COMENTATOR'S THERE IS ONE THEME
YOU ARE EASILY DEALING WITH DEAD JEWS OR ISRAELIES VICTIMES OF TERRORISM, BUT UNABLE TO DEAL WITH A STRONG UNCOMPROMISING JEWS OR ISRAELIES WHO STAND UP TO DEFEND THEIR CITIZENS FROM TERRORIST WHO ATTACK ISRAEL FROM AMONG CIVILIANS ,WITH A PERPOSE TO CREATE THE CARANAGE THAT HAS HAPPEND JUST RECENTLY SO THE WORLD WILL STOP ISRAEL FROM FINISHING THE JOB.SHAME ON YOU ALL.