1) The Golani brigade is one of the most highly decorated infantry units in the IDF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golani_Brigade

2) Olmert hardly makes these decisions on his own. He is surrounded by military mavens. Shaul Mofaz, for example, is in his cabinet. About Mofaz:

"Shaul Mofaz (help·info) (Hebrew: שאול מופז, born 1948 in Tehran, Iran) is the current Israeli Minister of Transport and a Deputy Prime Minister, and until recently was Minister of Defense. Previously he was the 16th Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, and was the first Israeli of Iranian-Jewish origin to achieve that post.

Mofaz has had the unique distinction of serving under four different Israeli Prime Ministers, having been appointed as Chief of Staff by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (1996-1999) in 1998, then served under Prime Minister Ehud Barak (1999-2001), and was then appointed as Minister of Defense in 2002 by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (2001-2006), and presently serves under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaul_Mofaz

3) I assume Olmert must have learned a lot as Sharon's right-hand man.

4) I think Olmert is making a better fist of it than anyone I can think of in Israeli life. That includes Ariel Sharon, or at least a functioning Sharon. Sharon was a military genius, but tended to be a hot-head and did carry around an awful lot of baggage. Not only can Olmert act more freely because of the absence of such baggage, but also he is at his best when under pressure and he is blessed with a penetrating and brilliant intellect. That most of his immediate family disagree vehemently with him politically also says an awful lot about Ehud Olmert.

I too was also very disappointed with Con Coughlin's column - it looked as though the facts were being twisted to fit the writer's presuppositions. Whatever Ehud Olmert's military record it's clear that he's surrounded by some very capable people and, in any case, contingency plans are being followed - Israel's military response would not have functioned so smoothly and efficiently otherwise.

The Niall Ferguson contribution on the opposing page is no better containing as it does the following paragraph (Niall Ferguson - Sunday Telegraph):
'On Wednesday members of Lebanon's Islamist organisation, Hezbollah, attacked an Israeli border patrol, killing three soldiers and capturing two. Israel, already grappling with a hostage crisis in Gaza, retaliated by bombing targets in Beirut, including the city's airport, and blockading Lebanese ports. Hezbollah responded in kind by firing yet more of its home-made rockets into Israel.'

Again the facts are being twisted in a way one does not expect to see outside of a BBC report. 1) 'attacking a border patrol' nicely avoids the inconvenient fact that Hizbollah extremists had crossed the border and invaded sovereign Israeli territory. 2) 'captured' can only apply to a soldier taken as part of a legitimate military operation or battle - a soldier abducted as the result of an illegal cross-border raid during peace-time is 'kidnapped'. 3) Is it not possible for editors to declare a moratorium on the word 'home-made' to describe Qassam and Katyusin rockets? A 1.8 metre long missile with a 40km range (and perhaps more) does not fit anyone's definition of home-made - anyone using that word in this context clearly has an agenda.

David H,

You are quite right. The very worst example of this though comes, as one would have expected, from Britain's answer to Der Sturmer, the BBC:

"The Qassams mostly needle the Israelis, like pinpricks in the ankles of a giant, taunting him to stamp back with his big, US-issue army boots.

The Katyushas are like poisoned arrows. They drive him mad."

http://tinyurl.co.uk/7d3a

How ironic it would be if the author of that piece fell victim to a Katyusha.

For his comment about the Qassams, I would rather like to spit in his face. I imagine other less moderate souls would like to do a lot more.

An ugly, ugly article.

Stephen Pollard has made so many references to the anti-Israeli bias in the media and, as the average Anglo-Saxon, I always thought, ‘Yeah, right.’

But his latest three posts bring it home with a vengeance. I’ve just finished reading today’s Le Monde and the bias is not just slanted, it actually presents lies – gross factual error – in what I naively thought was a respected paper.

As for the BBC – it’s so mindbogglingly one sided it’s hard to come to terms with how they think they can get away with such distortion. And they will get away with it and that’s just awesome in its audacity.

Another little snippet. In a novel I began a month ago [last of a trilogy] it begins with a landing on a shore near Ha Qerayot, הקריות, and almost immediately there’s a rocket attack on Haifa. It ends a short distance from Haifa at an ancient hill called Har Megiddon.

Israel hatred is so endemic to British journalists, commentators and reporters that nothing they say, no matter how malignant, surprises me. I am thinking even of normally fine writers such as Con Coughlin and Max Hastings.

Joshua,

Thanks for the link, the mind-set that article betrays is quite astonishing - I shall watch out for the name Nick Thorpe in future. It's amazing just what the BBC thinks it can get away with if it labels a report 'personal reflections'.