Sorry I didn't have time to post here today- but I usually have something I'd like to share with interested readers. Today it's this excellent article from a former Indian Government official on Israel's position vis a vis Hezbullah and the rest. He's both urgent in tone and knows whereof he speaks. Read it here. Taste:

"Israel is a very small country with a very small population. It has no military depth. It has to follow a policy of instant and forceful retaliation against terrorists and States such as Iran and Syria using terrorism as a weapon to make its population bleed. Israel has to retaliate instantly or perish. This has to be kept in mind while judging Israel's action in taking its fight against terrorism to the Lebanese territory. Israel had no other option, but to do what it has done."

Great article from David Warren on the Mid East situation.

Also (but you may have read it already) Melanie Phillips cuts deep, cuts true.

Can't really blame Paul Reynolds for waffling on 'in a good cause', as it were, since the BBC is more determined than a thousand Koffi Annans to see Israel acquiesce to a ceasefire that will save Hezbullah from its deserved drubbing.

Yet waffle on he does in pursuit of the idee fixee.

Meanwhile Richard from Euref brings us down to earth:

'France has decided to forego the privilege of intervening on Hezbollah’s side and announced that calls for an international force were “premature”. Germany has agreed to send some troops but only if definitely asked by both Israel and Hezbollah.

The great European foreign policy panjandrum, Javier Solana, has announced that “several European states” were ready to provide “all possible assistance” but did not specify who they were and what that assistance might consist of.'

Every sensible person wants Israel to finish the job they started- crushing Hezbullah and changing the ME balance of power vitally for the better. I hope Richard's right and the shambolic UN can kid nobody that they have a serious force available, least of all the Israelis.

Beeb autocorrects; kind of. (as do I)

Some readers might know of my more than passing interest in East Africa. For a long time this has caused me to take the threat of Islamism there quite seriously. In the battle of wills it's the one with most ambition, the most active one, which wins. Whatever you think of the half-baked analyses of radical Islam, there's no doubt about their own belief in the importance of their activities.

I recently noted the advance of Islamists in Somalia- a consolidation of their power really, since Islamists have been active there from the 90's. Now the more Islamic warlords have beaten off the less Islamic ones. And how has this been achieved? Well, in a recent news article on the subject, the Beeb wanted us to accept that

(UPDATE .... whoops- sorry to those who visited- looks like a draft slipped through by accident; I was looking for the link to support my memory of the Beeb's inadequacy, but I couldn't find it- the BBC's new search system is considerably less logical and friendly to critical enquirers. Still, I'll finish the point I began...)

They wanted us to accept that the Somali Islamic courts movement was founded on the support of "local businessmen". Yeah right I thought, and proceeded to post about Eritrea and the Horn of Africa. Now lo, but the BBC "finds out" (after the horse has bolted) that the Islamic courts seems to have support out of Saudi Arabia and, yes, Eritrea. The point is made here and here- in the kind of articles one goes to for reference rather than to form one's immediate judgement.

This situation brings me to another speculation. I remember thinking how odd the wars between Ethiopia and Eritrea have been. I have never seen a good reason for them. It might make a lot more sense when you consider that Ethiopia is the historic barrier to Islamist designs on East Africa. To find Islamists nibbling away at it to create an eastern Islamic corridor would not be at all surprising...

Amusing error of the day.

The usual lazy waffle over at the Observer, but this time with a humorous twist. The Guardianistas are vaguely conscious they need to talk about media bias, but don't realise they're it.

Cue waffle waffle waffle and then this- heh-

"The BBC is particularly sensitive to accusations of impartiality, however."

Accusing the BBC of impartiality- how ridiculous!