PM's wife 'sorry' in suicide bomb row

Jun 18 19:15 UTC 2002

Cherie Blair, the wife of the UK prime minister, has apologised for any
offence caused by remarks she made about Palestinian suicide bombers. 
Speaking at a charity event in London, Mrs Blair said young Palestinians felt
they had "no hope" but to blow themselves up. 

Tony Blair leapt to the defence of his wife after the comments triggered
criticism from Israeli diplomats, prominent members of the Jewish community
in Britain and the Conservative Party. 

Later, Mrs Blair said she was "obviously sorry" if any offence had been taken
from the way her words had been interpreted. 

The timing of the remarks - hours after 19 Israelis died and over 40 were
injured in a suicide bomb attack on a bus in Jerusalem - was the main target
of critics. 


'Regrettable' 

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said Mrs Blair had caused "massive
offence to the families of schoolchildren and others whose lives were brutally
and criminally ended this morning". 

The Israeli Embassy in London said it also regretted any public statements
that might be interpreted as expressing understanding for Palestinian
terrorism on the day of such an attack. 

No political grievance could justify "targeting of civilians for political
gain" or encouraging such "atrocities", the embassy added. 

Ned Temko, editor of the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, said Mrs Blair had risked
crossing the "dangerously narrow line" between suggesting there could be some
sort of rational explanation for targeting civilians in such attacks and
justifying them. 

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, spokesman for the Reform Synagogues of Great
Britain, said: "Whatever Cherie Blair may have meant, there can be no
justification for the massacre of non-combatants, such as children on their
way to school, by suicide bombers." 


A spokesman for Mrs Blair later said she would never condone suicide bombers
or say they had no choice. 

"If any offence has been taken from the interpretation of her comments, then
Mrs Blair is obviously sorry," he said. 

"None was intended and it goes without saying that she condemns the atrocity
today in the strongest possible terms along with all right minded people."


'Deepest sympathy' 

Earlier, Mr Blair was at pains to stress no offence was meant by his wife's
comments. 

Speaking after talks with Spanish Premier Jose Maria Aznar at Downing Street,
Mr Blair said: "First of all I hope that no-one misdescribes her sentiments,
or mine or anyone else's. 

"Everybody in this situation feels nothing but the deepest sympathy for the
people who have lost their lives in the latest terrorist attack." 

But, he went on, it was important to provide hope for the future through a
political process "and I am sure that is what Cherie was saying". 

Mrs Blair was with Queen Rania of Jordan to launch an internet appeal to
provide medical help and food for people caught up in the Middle East
violence. 

She told reporters: "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but
to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress." 

Political solution 

After listening to a presentation and meeting staff at the north London
offices of Medical Aid for Palestinians (Map), Queen Rania said: "Today's
events are a clear reminder that both sides of the conflict are suffering.
It is also clear that the suffering cannot continue. 

"The one sure way for hope for both peoples is to have a political solution
that will bring about the end of occupation for Palestinians and security for
Israelis and for the people of the region." 

Mrs Blair's spokesman underlined her support for those comments as Downing
Street tried to defuse the row. 

Since entering 10 Downing Street with her husband in 1997 she has campaigned
on a number of issues including breast cancer, employment rights and the
plight of women under the Taleban. 

A successful lawyer in her own right, Mrs Blair has so far attempted to avoid
any suggestion of playing a political role. 

Map - a British charity - helps Palestinians in refugee camps and other areas
where they say living standards have declined due to Israeli closures and
travel restrictions. 

response 2 of 69:

Jun 20 12:44 UTC 2002

I rarely agree with lk's comments, but I do this time. Although the 
lack of a Palestinian army has been said to be one of the causes of 
suicide bombings, it is obvious that these attacks have only hurt the 
prospects of a Palestinian state or freedom of oppresion of any sort. 
The violence on both sides seems counterproductive.  

response 4 of 69:

Jun 20 13:38 UTC 2002

Laughing gas would probably work better. 

response 6 of 69:

Jun 20 14:30 UTC 2002

lk, regardless of how you defend the violence on either side, it does 
not seem to be working in promoting any sort of peace. You can say that 
the Israeli attacks are the result of Palestinain terror, and you may 
well be right. But rather than decreasing the frequency of the attacks, 
the opposite is occuring. In America's case against the Taleban, it is 
different because the American forces never had any question of their 
ability to utterly destroy thr Taleban if necessary, if Israel did the 
same to the Palestinians, there would be no more war there, since the 
Palestinains could be totally eliminated. 

Yes, oppression. Israel has been taking over palestinian lands for 
decades. If someone did the same to you, you would probably refer to it 
as such. And the "Palestinian Army" cannot compare to the IDF. But I do 
agree that it is an excuse. The Palestinian terrorists are not helping 
themselves or their cause by their actions. 

response 8 of 69:

Jun 20 15:56 UTC 2002

Naturally, lk is privy to all sorts of things that we aren't. Advice to VMS:
Never argue with a bigot. 

response 10 of 69:

Jun 20 16:42 UTC 2002

Strange that Randy (who was unable to provide substantive responses even
in items he entered on this subject) thinks he has won the day simply by
labeled me a "bigot" for having opinions that differ from his.

vmskid: Very few Arabs were forced from their homes. In 1948, most fled of
their own volition, never having seen an Israeli soldier.  Similarly,
virtually all post-1967 "settlements" are not built on "Arab land". 

I wasn't making the point that the PA is a pawn but that, unlike the
Taliban, it is being protected. Some do so because they still think
Arafat's a darling, others because they figure he's better than the
alternative.  Thus Arafat keeps getting "last chances", a paradigm that
precisely encourages him not to take any of these "chances".  The jury is
still out on the recent movement to reform the PA, but I'm skeptical that
as long as Arafat continues to sit on the fence (and allow terrorism
against Israel and death squads to strike at Arab "collaborators) there
will never be progress precisely because his approach to the problem
disenfranchises the Arab voices of peace and democracy.  If the world
sent Arafat a strong message that he either had to change or face a
regime change (like in Afghanistan), I think he'd get the message.
But token slaps on the wrist bundled with "understanding" won't cut it.

> It seems that [the Palestinian Arabs] are the main ones that [terrorism]
> is hurting, as every time it occurs the IDF craps on them again.

Tell that to the families of hundreds of (primarily Jewish) innocent
victims who are the target of the terrorists and to the thousands who
have been injured and maimed.

But this is a perfect test for anyone's model. How can you possibly
explain that suicide bombings began in 1994, shortly after the Oslo
Agreement was signed -- a time of hope for peace and prosperity?
Why is it that even now the terrorists continue their murderous
campaign which many see as shooting themselves in the foot? Are they
that dumb -- or is there a method behind this madness?

Do you accept that the reason the terrorists attack Israel is because
it exists -- that they oppose any peace treaty which recognizes the
Jewish state and peaceful co-existence (rather than that they think
that giving up 3% of the "west bank" was too much or that the terrorism
is the result of "oppression" and any last vestiges of "occupation"
resulting in a loss of hope)?

response 12 of 69:

Jun 20 17:37 UTC 2002

hahahahahahaha!

response 14 of 69:

Jun 20 19:36 UTC 2002

Re #13:
> homicide attacks

I'm not a big fan of that term (and not just because George W. Bush came up
with it.) I think it's silly.  For one thing, it's not like anyone heard the
term "suicide bomber" and thought, "well, gee, these people must only be
killing themselves." For another, "homicide bomber" is a less specific term. 
The Unabomber was a homicide bomber, but he wasn't a suicide bomber.

response 16 of 69:

Jun 20 19:59 UTC 2002

they should have several terms:

homicide bomber: blows up other people but not himself. (like what we and
israel do)

homisuicide bomber: blows himself up plus takes out 1 or more people with him.

suicide bomber: only blows himself up.

response 18 of 69:

Jun 21 01:17 UTC 2002

e: "#6 (vmskid) : Yes, oppression. Israel has been taking over palestinian
lands for decades. If someone did the same to you, you would probably refer
to it as such."

FYI. the Arabs did "take over" Jewish land for decades.  Perhaps we cannot
call it oppression because they killed all the Jews.  Maybe you'd feel better
if the Jews had been bombing the Arabs in retaliation?

re:  "Forcing people from their homes, whatever the pretext, is oppression."

So, you support the activity of the Jews to reclaim the homes in the disputed
terrortories from which they were forcibly evicted in 1948!  Bravo!!

lk:  "If the world sent Arafat a strong message that he either had to change
or face a regime change (like in Afghanistan), I think he'd get the message"

Only if the message were wrapped around a bomb.

response 20 of 69:

Jun 21 03:32 UTC 2002

the problem is that tehre are many different groups who have different
agendas.  Hamas has a different agenda from Group 19.  So if you get hamas
to say they agree witht he peace initiative, Group 19 says to itself, I don't
want peace on those terms.  SEND IN A SUICIDE BOMBER!

They are indeed homicide bombers, a much more descriptive term to my mind.
If the suicide bombers blew up only themselves, they would have a greater
impact on the world nations, getting much more sympathy, and giving the
Isrealis NOTHING in the way of propogada to fight them with.

But with a dead 5 year old among the 19 killed in the last bombing, the
murderers are going to get little sympathy.

response 22 of 69:

Jun 21 13:13 UTC 2002

Re #19:
Well, what wall would you prefer to compare it to?  Several people have
compared it to the Great Wall of China, which I find amusing since the Great
Wall wasn't much of a success at its intended purpose.  Invading forces
simply went around it.  The same is true of the Maginot Line.

Besides, I was merely remarking that the design reminds me of the Berlin
Wall, which had a similar concrete panel construction.  You're so eager to
see everything as a slight against Israel that you read in a value
judgement, of course.

response 24 of 69:

Jun 24 06:51 UTC 2002

Oh, I see, David. You were talking about the esthetic look of the wall.
Say, doesn't that make the concrete blocks outside the White House just
like the Berlin wall, too? I think it's more like Pink Floyd's Wall because
they're both spelled the same way.

But, no, it's not I who read this "value" into what you said: you yourself
stated that keeping someone out is tantamount to keeping someone in. That's
like arguing that a wall between Mexico and the US is bad not because it would
keep out illegal immigrants but because it would pen in Americans.  As if....

Similarly, comparisons to the Maginot line are poor because it served a
much different purpose: to keep out armies. Israel's army has done a pretty
good job of doing that over the years.  Yet stopping individual attackers
has proven more difficult, much as we've learned here.

Tell me, if Afghanistan were located next door (say in Ohio) and SE Michigan
had been the object of THOUSANDS of terrorist attacks in the past 2 years
and hundreds per year for decade before that, and if the international
community was preserving the Taliban rather than us taking it out, if
Briarwood, Stucci's, Cottage Inn, the Necto, Community High School
and the Farmer's Market had all been targets of suicide bombers -- would
you say that building a wall to keep out these murderers makes it just like
the Berlin Wall because it pens in the people of Ohio?