PMQs: It is left to Ming to raise Middle East crisis

In the last PMQs before the summer recess, David Cameron first asked about the Government's climbdown on Home Information Packs.  He then went on to list a series of other Labour policy reversals including police mergers, planning reform and laws to protect public servants.

A feisty Tony Blair responded by listing the Tory leader's own policy forays: the British Bill of Rights proposal, English votes for English laws, 'hug-a-hoodie', the delayed exit from the EPP and obfuscation on nuclear energy.  None had gone well, he suggested.

David Cameron looked angry when he said that the Prime Minister should answer questions - not keep raising his own questions.  In the best line of PMQs he said to the Prime Minister - 'I know he doesn't like being interrogated but the way things are going at Scotland Yard he better get used to it!'

Ming Campbell raised the topic that David Cameron should have raised - the crisis in the Middle East.  The LibDem leader invited the Prime Minister to attack Israel's "disproportionate" response to the attacks from Hezbollah.  The Prime Minister disagreed with the premise of the question and defended Israel's right to eliminate the terrorist bases that were being used to rocket attack its own citizens.

John Redwood asked why the economy of Ireland had grown four times faster than the economy of Scotland since 1997.  The Chancellor wasn't only guilty of disloyalty, Mr Redwood concluded - he was also incompetent.

PS Sat alongside Tony Blair for the second week in a row was Home Secretary John Reid.  The Daily Politics Show calculated that he nodded more than 200 times last week as the Prime Minister spoke.  It gives new meaning to the expression 'yes man'.

Comments

[Peter M.]

I hope you didn't mean that DC should have asked that thing about "disproportionate response to the attacks from Hezbollah."

We must stand firmly on the Israel's side!

[Jack Stone]

Totally agree with Peter M`s comment. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with the Israel`s.
Think the BBC coverage of this tragedy as been a disgrace. Have acted like nothing more than a mouthpiece of Hezbollah. All sympathy for the Lebanese but none for the Israel`s. Its been outrageous.

[Andrew Woodman]

I thought Cameron did rather well with the questions he asked. It's pushing the Labour incompetence again and it was a great line about Soctland yeard (provided by Hague I'd have thought).

There is the argument that he should have asked about the Middle East crisis, but it would have just been the standard questions for information already widely known.

[Editor]

Sorry Peter M if I wasn't clear.

I didn't mean that DC should have asked Ming's question - I would simply have preferred him to have raised the issue - it's obviously number one issue in the world at the moment.

And I don't think I'll say this very often but I'm 100% with Jack Stone, too!

[Jon Gale]

"Ming Campbell raised the topic that David Cameron should have raised - the crisis in the Middle East."

Why? The crisis in the Middle East is just that - in the Middle East. Why should the parliament of a country over 2000 miles away waste time discussing it. The last thing we need is Blair committing British troops to yet more hellholes so he can try secure a "legacy" for himself (other than the disaster of Iraq).

And for the record, I think Israel is entirely justified in what it is doing, and all blame can be laid at the feet of Hamas and Hizbullah, but It Does Not Involve Britain.

[Adrian Owens]

I think I need to find a shady spot. I too agree with Jack Stone. In fact yesterday, during Margaret Beckett's interview with James Naughtie on the Today programme I found myself roaring Mrs Beckett on. It must be the heat!

[Andrew Woodman]

Privatise it!!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Forgive me for interrupting this meeting of the Israel Fan Club but it is completely beyond me as to how anybody could not see their bull-in-a-china-shop response as grossly disproportionate.

I fully appreciate Israel's right to defend its legally recognised territory and its citizens, but the fire and brimstone approach preferred by the hawks that dominate the Israeli administration is simply madness and only succeeds in making a terrible situation even worse by acting as a recruiting sergeant for the terrorists.

[Mark]

Daniel, a voice of reason at last!

[MH]

As a self-confessed non-Cameron fan, I thought Dave did rather well. I am not sure it carries much weight with the electorate in mid Summer, but he bested Blair, which is certainly not always the case with their encounters.

[CCHQ Spy]

Why does Theresa always look so glum?

[Matthew]

I was about to post some disagreement until I scrolled down to Daniel's point. Maybe I need a history lesson; why is it that the right is always pro-Israeli? Not that it should be anti; but a bit of objective thought would be useful once in a while. At my university the weekly Conservative column was invariably focused on Isreal/Jewish issues. But lets not forget that for two soldiers (who are probably dead) Isreal is wreaking mass destruction, killing innocent people, driving out foreigners from Lebanon, probably causing the break-up of the first post-Syrian government, possibly causing civil war. How can anyone say this is proportionate, pro-Isreali or not? The reason Isreal continues to get provoked is because the provokers know this will be the response, fuelling hatred, the aim of those who provoke. In our lives we often wind up those who respond. Why wind up someone who doesn't; it's rather boring. Why can Isreal never turn the other cheek for the interests of lasting peace?

[Serf]

Privatise it!!

I guess you mean the BBC rather than Prime Minister's Questions.

[MagicAldo]

did anyone see Patten's article in the FT today? Is there any reason why this guy is still in the Conservative Party? Will no-one get rid of him?

[Andrew Woodman]

The BBC Serf although maybe the rights to PMQ's could be flogged off for a couple of grand. The PM could come on like Bruce Forsyth then and shout 'nice to see you, to see you nice' at the assembled MP's. Could be fun.

[Mark Senior]

At the time of the 6 day war in 1967 I was strongly pro Israel but as the years have passed my support for them has waned . In the present situation , the initial blame may be with Hezbollah but it is wrong for Israel to wage war in return on innocent women and children in the Lebanon .

[ThePrince]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5194524.stm

Nice to see Cameron one liner and criticism of Blair at PMQs are left out. How I love the impartiality of the BBC.

[Jaz]

Cameron did fantastically well today and his jokes were sweetly timed.

That said, the conservative party needs to move on from the right-wing US foreign policy. What Isreal is doing IS dispproptionate, I have no doubt that the majority of British people probably think that Isreal is the main aggressor at the minute.

Whatever the facts, war is unpopular in any case, and we should reflect that in our foreign policy.

The Bush administration is doing nothing to restrain Isreal, the Blair governemnt isn't doing anything either. To put it simple... The British government, the the United States seem to condone killing of hundred innocent civilians over the abduction of two soldiers. Do people really think that this will help us win the hearts and minds of muslims around the world? If we can't win their hearts and minds..Terrorism will remain our biggest challenge for decades to come.

[SRF]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5194590.stm

Anyone looking at this link will find plenty of reporting on criticism of Blair and Cameron's one-liner.
The link posted by The Prince was to a factual summary merely of the questions asked and answers given.
One could suggest that his post was just as biased as he professes the BBC to be...

[Patsy Sergeant]

Matthew @ 14.00 - 'Why is it that the right is always pro-Israeli?'.

Yes you could do with a history lesson, it is actually quite new that the conservatives appear to be more pro-Israeli, in fact in the Politics Show this lunchtime one got the more traditional Tory (Kenneth Clarke) taking the more traditional Tory view.

'Why can Israel never turn the other cheek', well I suppose that is Christian philosophy, but when you have ?people with rockets bent on OBLITERATION only, who do not believe in negotiated peace settlements, in 'turning the other cheek', you would be deciding to agree with obliteration of your country.

[TomTom]

Why can Israel never turn the other cheek', well I suppose that is Christian philosophy,

Shouldn't have thought so, there is very little in Christianity that does not emanate from Judaism. It is just that so-called Christians in The West have a debased understanding of Christian Theology which has reduced them to a laughing stock and earned the contempt of Muslims because it has become "anything goes and Jesus loves you".

http://tinyurl.com/mvwks

This tells you that virtually every religion has similar pieties........

[Annabel Herriott]

Please correct me if my history is a bit wonky, but I thought the Jewish nation was given a strip of DESERT to make their homeland of. Jewish can do, and ingenuity did the rest - irrigation, greenhouses, think how much fruit and veg comes with an Israeli trademark these days. You cant blame the palestinians for wanting to snatch it back, now its all nicely developed, nice try! But why did they not develop it for themselves, instead of waiting for the israelies to do it for them?? Not many people know that!

[John Hustings]

I don't understand Jack Stone's comment. It makes no sense at all.

[Peter M.]

Jaz:

1. Do you really think that the main purpose of any political party is to be elected? Because that's the way how it sounds to me when you write about popularity of Israeli actions. Politicians should not blindly follow public opinion.

2. It is sad that people think Israel is the main aggressor. My God, don't you see it? Militant islamists want to destroy Israel, wipe it off the map. The whole 'Middle East story' is a about never-ending Islamic hatred. They hate Jews (as well as they hate us!) and they regard them less than animals. And anyone who knows the history of the Middle East and the current situation there must corroborate this. It's not sufficient to watch the BBC.

3. It is a fairytale to talk about winning hearts and minds of the Muslims throughout the world. They should become adult in minds and reject all the extremism and terrorist ideas themselves, from their own belief.

[TomTom]

Jaz, have you ever wondered what assurances Israel was given in 2000AD when it withdrew from Lebanon ?

I read that with Resolution 1559 the Security Council was going to supervise the disarming of Hezbollah and the introduction of the Lebanese Army into the South of their country to guard the Israel-Lebanon Border.

There is even a comment on the Net about a meeting at the French Consulate in Beirut where this was discussed with French troops inter alia to ensure that Hezbollah left the area.

How is it then that Hezbollah was able to use ladders to enter Israeli territory and kill 8 Israeli border guards and kidnap two others ? Or that Hezbollah could maintain 70.000 armed men in South Lebanon and stockpile 11.000 rockets funded by Iran ?

Whatever has the "international Community" been doing for the past 6 years ?

[Richard North]

""Ming Campbell raised the topic that David Cameron should have raised - the crisis in the Middle East."

Why? The crisis in the Middle East is just that - in the Middle East. Why should the parliament of a country over 2000 miles away waste time discussing it. The last thing we need is Blair committing British troops to yet more hellholes so he can try secure a "legacy" for himself (other than the disaster of Iraq).

And for the record, I think Israel is entirely justified in what it is doing, and all blame can be laid at the feet of Hamas and Hizbullah, but It Does Not Involve Britain.

Jon Gale | July 19, 2006 at 13:09"

Ye Gods! And they call Eurosceptics "little Englanders. We have an estimated 20,000 British citizens in Lebanon awaiting evacuation, there is a major operation out there, spearheaded by our military which has just committed all but one of our last available Chinooks to the operation, at a time when our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are crying out for these assets - and dying for the lack of them.

And you think Cameron should not have raised it?

Well done Tim, for this post.

[Matthew]

I'm not sure that is true. Surely Isreal is suffering more damage this way than if it had not responded. If a French Islamic group kidnapped a British soldier would we start bombing France? Of course this leads to a ridiculous conclusion, but then we must ask whether the conclusion Isreal has reaches is similarly ridiculous. Yes there is a link between the Lebanese government and the militants but this surely has to be weighed against the fact that Lebanon has only recently got rid of Syria and a bit of short-term pain for long term gain would have saved many lives on both sides of the border. I am not saying Isreal does not have the right to do what it is doing; but it is not right in the other sense. Totally nonsensical decision and it is time someone said enough is enough.

[David Belchamber]

I think that DC should have led on the Middle East at PMQs; not only because it has for years been a tinder box and is now in a very dangerous state but also because the FCO has appeared pretty incompetent and lacking in urgency about getting our nationals out of Beirut.
I have always believed that after our foray into Afghanistan (which IMO was perfectly legitimate), the next initiative that Bush and Blair should have undertaken was to work towards making Palestine a state that recognised Israel.
After achieving that Bush and Blair could perhaps have recruited a much wider and stronger coalition to take on Iraq.
Had they over a period of years been able to achieve those aims, I doubt that Blair would now be a busted flush and we would stand far less chance of forming the government after the next GE.

[malcolm]

As I dio so often I whole heartedly agree with your post Tim.The asituation in the middl East is infinetly more important than scoring cheap political points over Home seller packs! Having said that I'm more inclined to the DVA/Jaz point of view over this question which is where I guess we part company.Heavy bombing of Lebanon is not likely to give Israel what it wants.
Also as so often it is worth highlighting Richard Norths point that the first duty of the Foreign Office is to protect British citizens abroad.If the press is to be believed ,they have been found wanting...again!

[michael]

Of course there will come a time when Sir Ming has to ask a question on domestic policy...

Or perhaps there won't ;)

Having made a statement on the Middle East yesterday and the situation to be debated tomorrow - Cameron was quite right to stick to the strategy of reminding the House and press of New Labour incompetence and sleaze and remember PMQs is not a forum for serious debate.

[deborah]

It's no good, I have to ask the "elephant in the room" question.

What is the point of Prime Minister's Questions?

It's such a farce - Blair ignores questions he doesn't like and the Speaker lets him get away with it. Isn't this supposed to be the place where the PM is held to account?

Perhaps in the autumn (if Blair's still around) Cameron should do a Paxman and just keep on asking the same question until he gets an answer.

[mirthios]

Annabel @ 15:15 said 'Please correct me if my history is a bit wonky, but I thought the Jewish nation was given a strip of DESERT to make their homeland of.' In fact, it's all God's fault. He told Moses to cross the Red Sea and turn LEFT. If he'd said RIGHT, the Jews would have had the oil and the Arabs the oranges. Oy veh!

[malcolm]

Good idea Deborah,I suggest DC if he isn't satisfied with the answer ask the same question again (and again) word for word.

[David Belchamber]

Quite right, Deborah @ 16.14: "It's such a farce - Blair ignores questions he doesn't like and the Speaker lets him get away with it".
DC should write to the Speaker and remind him that the PM is there to answer questions, not to give party political broadcasts.
He might also mention that the planted questions are a complete and utter waste of everybody's time and they should be cut out.
The whole time should be devoted to the opposition parties (including, of course, the left wing of Nulab) to hold the PM and the government to account.

[Henry Mayhew]

There is a constitutional obligation on the leader of the Offical Opposition to oppose and hold the Government to account. Not to do so on Israel/Lebanon at the moment is, one could argue, unconstitutional and a good reason why Dave C isn't ready to be PM. His current job is not simply about generating the PR to get the next one..

[Jon Gale]

Richard North,

I certainly wasn't objecting to evacuating our citizens. I was objecting to this strange idea that 'Something must be done' 'We must do something' 'Why is isn't Blair/Cameron doing more' etc.

On one side we have people who want Blair & Cameron to give Israel the UK's full support, on the other side there are people who want Blair & Cameron to condemn Israel and/or send peacekeeping forces.

I'm just saying we shouldn't have to do anything since it has absolutley nothing to do with Britain or Britain's neighbours, or our continent, security, trade, or even oil supply.

To think we have a duty to get involved somehow is bizarre. Do you watch fims/read accounts of the American Civil War and think "Why doesn't the Ottoman Empire do something?"

[Richard North]

Jon - if you read your own post again, you will see that your point was, "Why should the parliament of a country over 2000 miles away waste time discussing it."

I gave you your answer.

[Annabel Herriott]

Touche! mirthios, Touche!

[James Maskell]

Cameron did alright. Good one liners including the interrogation one, but he needs to make sure he's asking the right questions. dont bang them out 6 in a row. Save them till later on.

I have more sympathy for the Lebanese people being bombed into submission by an overly aggressive Israel. The more Israel does this, the greater risk of other nations getting involved...Syria, Iran... This is almost a war. As for Britain, all it can do is pull its nationals out and use diplomatic channels to get the situation to calm down.

The John Reid head-nodding point was so funny. I must admit, my eyes were fixed on him during the first five minutes! Pity he showed some self control...

[TomTom]

The more Israel does this, the greater risk of other nations getting involved...Syria, Iran..

Not a chance !

This is a proxy war - exactly what George Bush told you 5 years ago. A terrorist group uses a sovereign state to launch its attacks - another sovereign state sponsors the terror group.

It is asymmetric warfare. Iran will not get directly involved nor will Syria - in the same way they don't send Iranians to plant bombs in Basra to kill British soldiers, nor to blow up mosques.

There is a war in the Middle East but it is not with Israel - it is between Saudi Arabia and Iran to decide who will be the regional power - whether Shia or Sunni will control.

Iraq is one battleground - Lebanon another. Israel is the meat in the sandwich.

Israel is adopting the prickly defences of the hedgehog - but having suffered 1600 rockets in 8 days it must destroy Hezbollah's arsenal which Iran stocked up since 1992. There is a concerted attack on Israel from Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank where Jordan is on full alert. With rockets able to reach Tel Aviv from Lebanon and Iran busy playing with nuclear technology the 6 years the United Nations wasted afdter Israel withdrew from Lebanon in implementing 1559 mean that this could be the time that Europe has to consider its own security and decide whether Russia or Iran is a better guarantee of energy supplies in future