No more blind eyes: Is full time approaching for Israel's belligerent foreign policy?

For most people who have any knowledge of the Jewish state of Israel's rather short, but nevertheless eventful history, this week's revelations in the Guardian newspaper that there is now documentary evidence to prove that Israel had been providing nuclear weapons to the South African apartheid regime during the seventies and eighties may not have come as the greatest shock. The records of discussions, where both sides talked of their shared love of freedom (unless you're black or Arab that is), are ironic as they are disturbing. I particularly enjoyed the South African government's expression of brotherly feelings with Israel, saying that they were both "situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples." Typical fascists to bring skin colour into everything.

The question, however, is how much longer can Israel hope to defy the UN, and now even the United States over their handling, of not only affairs in Gaza and the West Bank but also their actions elsewhere across the globe? Barack Obama has set himself the task of bringing some form of peace settlement and a step on the road to reconciliation between Israel what is left of the Palestinian state. But Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its siege on Gaza is not a problem which only effects these two nations. It has worldwide significance, especially for the US, which is right now struggling to prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons it feels it needs to compete with Israel's power in the Middle East. The hostility between these nations makes it obvious that arming both with nuclear weapons would bode ill for the region and for global security.

So when President Obama seeks to prevent Iran arming itself with weapons of mass destruction, he must surely see that it is tied in with the issue of Israeli belligerence. Snubbed by the Israeli prime minister and now greeted with evidence that Israel was happy to arm a white supremacist regime with atomic bombs, Mr. Obama's patience may be wearing thin. Despite the massive lobbyist influence in the US, which prevents America from exerting any real pressure on the Jewish state, Israel has done too much to think that it can continue to defy the world's greatest superpower. Israel's crimes are great and many, and they are well known as well. They do not measure up to the crimes committed by others over the last hundred years, but as a liberal democracy it is disturbing to observe how seemingly unrepentantly they bomb and shoot children and civilians.

Mossad's use of fake British passports in its latest killing is another good example of how the state has tried Western patience in recent years. If America hopes to disarm Iran, it must first look to controlling Israel, which too often threatens and attacks its neighbours. Also, American support of the Jewish state even when it is being accused of war crimes by the United Nations is an important fuelling element in the growth of terrorism by militant Muslims against the West. To bring about lasting peace in Israel and Palestine, Mr. Obama must appear not to take sides, and his recent agreements for nuclear disarmament with Russia should be used as an example to show that the US does not condone the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Israel must pledge itself to a peaceful resolution of their conflict with the Palestinians and put an end to their growing enmity against Iran, else risk being isolated by an international community which is starting to frown ever more deeply upon its actions. It should take note of the apartheid regime's fall if it does not wish to share its fate in one way or another. Marginalising the extremists is the key to ending the conflict in the Middle East. Israel must marginalise its own extremists and we must all act to end the killing and oppression of Palestinians if we are to stem the hate against the West.

Bringing freedom to Palestine will dampen the fires of extremism more than invading Iraq and Afghanistan ever did, in fact those actions perhaps only helped to exacerbate the problem. The Middle Eastern conflict is the greatest test that western civilisation has faced since the Second World War, if we do not find a peaceful and lasting solution, the world's newly emerging superpowers may spell the end to the west's dominance and pose a threat to the survival of liberal democracy. It falls to America to bring its promise of freedom where it's needed, else it risks becoming like the imperialists it so proudly overthrew. Perhaps this apartheid revelation might spur Obama on to sort this out once an for all. One things for sure, if Israel carries on like it has done, the consequences may be as devastating for Britain as for anyone else. We must, in the end, put our trust in the United States to find the solution, and thus perhaps we should all be worried.

"Go Hang!" - What the electorate's indecision means for Britain, and why handing the country to the Tories might be a price too heavy to pay.

Well if this goes on much longer the world might actually come to an end. On the other hand if you don't read the Daily Mail, it might just be one of the most exciting moments in British politics for many years. The incumbent Labour Government has lost its majority and the Eton Boys will tell you this means the country has 'rejected Gordon Brown', or simply perhaps those voters which didn't make up the 8 million which did vote for his party. The Tories have more seats than any other party now, but twenty short of an overall majority needed to get their noses back in the tro... sorry I meant get into power. It seems there are two options open to Dave (The airbrushed one, not the television channel). He can either attempt to set up a minority government, or try to form a coalition with other parties. A minority government is a possibility but because there is such a vast difference between the policies of the Tories and those of Labour and Lib Dems, getting any legislation through that reflects their policies on key issues like the economy would be nigh on impossible, due to almost inevitable opposition from the other two main parties. A Tory minority government would last perhaps a year before the country would require another election, and a year of ineffective Conservative government and a possible double dip that the Bank of England warned could be caused by the Tory economic policies or simply by lack of strong, majority government action could spell game over for Cameron and his startled rabbit 'Ozzer'.

Right now it appears the Tories are prepared to enter talks over a possible deal between themselves and the Lib Dems, but the huge rift between each party's policies may scupper this move. Labour and the Lib Dem policies have far more in common, and the only thing stopping a deal going ahead right now between Labour and the Lib Dems is the fact that both parties joined together would still not form a majority in the Commons. The SNP and Plaid Cymru have offered to join a Lib/Lab coalition, but Labour has been careful not to approve this move, as everyone knows nationalist politicians are by nature absolutely mental and self destructive to have on your side when you're trying to form a coalition government.

But if the Lib Dems want to make a deal with the Conservatives they will have to be very careful in the compromises they get. Nick Clegg should not be afraid to squeeze whatever he can from David Cameron, including much needed electoral reform and protection for public services threatened by promised swingeing cuts from a Tory government. Cameron wants to reduce the number of seats in the Commons, in an act of criminal and undemocratic gerrymandering, to favour the Conservatives and reduce possible Labour and Lib Dem seats. Clegg must not let him do this without providing electoral reform, other wise the proposed constituency changes will gift an unfair advantage to the Tories. Cameron wants to fulfil his ambitions 'dreamt up on the playing fields of Eton' (to unashamedly plagiarise one of my favourite quotes of Labour's campaign, and one I felt rang most painfully true), and he wants to reform the commons to undemocratically keep Labour out for years.

These next few days will be vital. What is clear from the last two years of economic crisis is that the men and women whose 'talent' was tempted into this country with disgusting amounts of money have let their greed, corruption and risk taking get the better of them, with disastrous results for the working men and women of Britain. I am reminded of the famous phrase "O tempora! O mores! Senatus haec intelligit, Consul videt; hic tamen vivit!" These words spoken in the Roman Senate two thousand years ago were spoken by a man who saw the evil of his time thrust society into crisis. Speaking against Catiline, a man vilified by his critic as a personification of all that was rotten in the republic, Cicero describes his frustration. "Oh what times! What morals! The Senate knows it, the Consul sees; yet this man still lives!" New Labour made the mistake of taking Thatcherite economics as something that could not be fought, but had to be embraced for the good of the country. Gordon Brown made this mistake as chancellor, and it cost him his career and big chance as Prime Minister. For all his abilities as an economist, it was his reliance on the bankers to do what was right and act responsibly that was his undoing. The greed of the City almost brought this country to its knees. For the Romans, the greed of its elite in Cicero's lifetime saw the collapse of the republic.

Gordon Brown's fight to save the banks and protect the livelihoods of those millions of people who had been put at risk, where probably his finest days. He fought tooth and nail not for votes but for people. He saved thousands, perhaps millions from unemployment and protected the savings of every British saver. He was, and is a Labour Prime Minister, and I believe these past two years have revealed the conscientious and passionate man that he is. He has fought for what he believes in and for what Labour should stand for. He trusted the capitalists and they destroyed him. Labour has learnt it's lesson in this election. It has learnt to stick to its guns and fight for the people, not lay it's arms at Murdoch's feet. For its own sake let us hope it never forgets this lesson. The Tories talk of giving power back to the people to run their own lives. But the ordinary person does not have the time to help run their child's school, run their local health trust. The Conservatives are so out of touch with ordinary people that they don't realise that they rely on the government to provide and run schools for the children and hospitals and buses and trains to get them to work. They're too busy working nine to five earning enough to support themselves. This means only the rich, with time on their hands on to run schools and local services, have a say in their running, and social equality will suffer inevitably as a result.

The Tories argue against big government, but then why did we go to vote at all if all they're going to do is to sit in Westminster and tell us to get on with it. We might as well go back to the bloody feudal system if the Tories want to render representative democracy useless. And they can't escape the fact that Gordon Brown was right. The strong arm of 'big government' stepped in to save ordinary people's money and their jobs when the bottom of capitalism fell out. The Conservative's school friends and their business partners brought us to the edge of the abyss, and rest assured they'll just pretend it was Labour's economic folly. Labour didn't run the banks and they collapsed. Now the government owns them and the economy is recovering. How life is full of such wonderful coincidences. One thing is for sure, Nick Clegg could prove to be the most influential man in politics for a generation. Let's hope he remembers the eighties well enough to keep the Etonians sufficiently frustrated. For there is nothing more amusing than a public school boy who's been force fed his own pride.