The Israeli Authorities annexed the Palestinian village of Beit Iksa by placing it on the map west of the Annexation Wall, and considered it part of Jerusalem. The decision means that the village would be isolated from the West Bank.
The decision comes in contradiction with a decision issued by the Israeli government in 2006 in which it decided not to annex the village.
Implementing the decision means that some 3000 Palestinians would be allowed to enter Israel without any permits, but would also be isolated from the West Bank.
The conflict on the future of the village started after the Israeli government, headed by the former Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, had decided in 2003 that the village would be on the Israeli side of the Wall.
The government of former Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, approved in 2006 the new route of the Wall which placed the village on the Palestinian side, only 200 meters away from the Green Line.
The Israeli police and security devices recommended that the Palestinian village should not be on the Israeli side of the Wall as this would allow thousands of Palestinians free access to Israel.
They said that such an issue would facilitate the smuggling of combat equipment, and could lead to ‘criminal offenses’ in addition to smuggling products.
The Wall route was never officially approved by the Israeli cabinet as it still awaiting a response to from the police and the security services. Therefore, the government decided to install a temporary fence that would “stop smuggling and attacks in Jerusalem”.
The fence would likely be electronic, and a road would be paved next to it to allow military patrols to man it. The project will likely cost dozens of millions of Israeli shekels.
Once Barack Obama made up his mind to push for a resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, it became inevitable there would be an epic test of wills between the US president and Israel’s prime minister, the irredentist Benjamin Netanyahu.
So it has proved, with Mr Netanyahu responding provocatively to US demands for a total freeze on Israel’s colonisation of occupied Palestinian land by expanding the number of settlers – on Sunday, for instance, evicting Palestinian families in Arab east Jerusalem to make way for Jewish families.
But, as everyone watches to see who blinks first, the Obama administration is seeing its strategy attacked from another flank.
Despite intense US diplomacy, Saudi Arabia, Washington’s closest Arab ally, has brushed aside efforts to extract Arab concessions – such as the opening of Israeli trade delegations in Arab countries – in exchange for a settlements freeze. On the face of it, it would seem reasonable for Arabs to gradually “normalise” relations with Israel, to help pave the way towards peace with the Palestinians. But their experience of the peace process has ensured that is not how most Arabs see it.
Prince Saud al-Faisal, the veteran Saudi foreign minister, is echoing widespread sentiments when he called for a “comprehensive approach” to peace that “defines the final outcome at the outset and launches into negotiations over final status issues: borders, Jerusalem, water, refugees and security”.
This is not just because Saudi Arabia is behind a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace plan, spurned by Israel since it was endorsed by the Arab League in 2002. It is not just because gradualist processes such as Oslo failed because there was no agreement on the final destination, enabling the extremists on each side to exercise a veto. Nor is it just because many Arab leaders cynically use the situation of “no war, no peace” as an alibi to monopolise power and resources.
In 1992-96, at the height of the peace process, Israel reaped a peace dividend without concluding a peace. Diplomatic recognition of Israel doubled, from 85 to 161 countries, exports doubled and foreign investment increased sixfold. Per capita income in the occupied territories fell in the same period by more than a third, while the number of settlers expanded by half. A broad-looking avenue led quickly to a road-block. The Arabs have not forgotten, and Mr Obama will have to get more than a settlement freeze out of Israel to lure them down that road again.
It's about time that Communities Secretary John Denham does something about the threat of right-wing extremism.
White working-class estates are to be targeted in a government drive to tackle the threat of right-wing extremism, Communities Secretary John Denham has said.
About 100 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in England will be involved in the programme, which could include open discussion meetings to allow residents to air grievances about housing and immigration without being accused of racism and a requirement on councils to be more transparent about their social housing policies.
The plan comes after years in which the far-right British National Party (BNP) has made inroads into traditional Labour strongholds, culminating in the election of two BNP candidates to the European Parliament in June.
Mr Denham said that some of those backing the BNP were "undoubtedly people who have voted Labour in the past" and that the government had to launch a "sustained and visible campaign" to re-engage with white working-class communities.
"Very few people would actually see themselves as white supremacists or white fascists," he said.
"But we know that those communities are the ones that often say no-one's speaking up for us. That's a sense populist parties can exploit.
"I think that there has been a concerted effort over the last 10 years to target resources at the most deprived communities. But I think, if we're honest about it, the extent to which that work has really engaged a lot of local people has been patchy."
The neighbourhoods to be involved in the scheme are expected to be identified by Mr Denham's Department for Communities and Local Government towards the end of the summer, with work starting in September.
What hypocrites the Tories are they are now claiming to cut high-salary council chiefs and could face the sack. Granted there is a lot of high-salary council chiefs across the UK who earn as much or less if they have done nothing wrong the only crime they face is because they earn a high salary, come on you can do better than that Eric Pickles.
Council chiefs paid as much as £240,000 a year face the axe under a Conservative government, after a senior Tory said the position of council chief executive should be abolished.
The party chairman, Eric Pickles, said recent changes to the structure of local government meant many chief executives were no longer needed. Since 2000, many councils have switched to having a leader and elected cabinet members handling specific portfolios.
"I'm not entirely sure that paying a quarter of a million pounds for a chief executive of a large local authority is justified," he said. "To a degree, they are being paid like football managers. In a time when members have executive responsibilities, I'm not entirely sure that can be justified."
At least 16 local government officials earn more than the Prime Minister, and almost 200 earn more than cabinet ministers. The highest-paid council chief is thought to be Joe Duckworth, head of the London borough of Newham. The Taxpayer's Alliance claims that Mr Duckworth earns a basic £240,000. Stoke-on-Trent city council has said it was to pay its new chief executive £195,000, £50,000 more than it paid its previous chief executive.
Tory insiders believe contractual agreements may make it impossible to remove incumbent chief executives but they are considering merging the roles of council head and chief executive. "I'm not one of these people who gets excited about high salaries but it should be in proportion to their responsibilities," Mr Pickles said. "A lot of council chief executives do not have that level of responsibility."
A spokesman for the council chief executives group, Solace, said: "The most successful councils are the ones where politicians elected to take the decisions work closely with excellent strategic managers trained to run large, complex organisations."
Nearly 20 more Conservative MPs are expected to stand down at the next election as part of a fresh clear-out prompted by the parliamentary expenses controversy.
Thirteen sitting MPs have already announced recently that they will leave the Commons, but another 17 are expected to follow suit, the party chairman, Eric Pickles, told the Guardian.
The Tories still need to select candidates in about 100 constituencies. These include the 13 seats where Tory MPs have recently announced that they are standing down.
But Pickles said that he expected more MPs to quit and that "in total we might be looking at 30-ish Conservative-held seats [becoming vacant] before the general election". Pickles insisted that he expected Tory MPs to stand down not necessarily because they were afraid of losing, or had done anything wrong, but because they were demoralised.
"Some colleagues have found the process of expenses very wearing and they're very demotivated. They might not have had any problems themselves at all, but maybe they're feeling it's just time to move on," he said.
The Tories who have so far become casualties of the expenses furore include Andrew MacKay and his wife, Julie Kirkbride; Anthony Steen; Sir Peter Viggers – who notoriously spent £1,645 on a duck island; and Douglas Hogg. Nicholas and Ann Winterton were also criticised but said they were standing down because they had grown tired of the hectic life at Westminster.
In May, David Cameron announced that he was reopening the list of those approved to apply for seats – the candidates' list – because he wanted to "refresh" the party with independent newcomers who did not have a conventional political background.
Pickles said the departures would give the party the chance to bring dozens of new-style Tories with little or no background in Conservative politics into parliament. He said that about 4,000 people had applied since then and up to 70% of them were "new people".
"We've got ourselves a good mix: lots of doctors, lots of social workers, lots of community nurses … people who've got involvement with the community outside the political process."
Pickles said that about 20 to 30 of these "new people" were likely to end up in parliament after the next election.
To help the new-style Tories get selected, the party is changing the way candidates are evaluated. In future, working in the community will be given equivalent weight to party political experience.
In his interview Pickles also said that he was worried about Gordon Brown standing down before the election and that winning "wouldn't be as simple" if Alan Johnson were leading Labour.
Pickles said that, although his party was well ahead in the polls, he was not convinced that an election victory was certain – not least because Brown could be replaced as Labour leader. "It's going to require a lot of graft from associations, a lot of graft from candidates and unremitting pressure between now and next May, because you can't rule out the possibility of something in the later part of the year or next spring," he said.
Asked what he meant, he said he was referring to Brown standing down. He said that it would be harder for the Tories to win with Johnson as prime minister, but he did not think replacing Brown would "fundamentally change the picture" because voters were angry with Labour, not just its leader.
Writing in today's News of the World, the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, insisted that Brown standing aside before the election, expected next spring, was "not an option".
He urged Labour MPs and activists not to "meekly hand over power" but to prepare for a concerted fightback.
Accepting that Labour is trailing badly in the polls and will enter the election campaign as the underdog, he asked: "Do we shrug our shoulders, accept our fate and meekly hand over power to an arrogant Conservative party which believes it can do nothing, sit back and be given power on a plate? Or do we fight back? … When we come back in the autumn the party needs to roll its sleeves up, pull together and concentrate."
I have been listening to the debates from both MPs & Anti-fascistcampaigners for a long time and i have come to the conclusion that we all should have a proper debate on this subject as we have to face up to that fact that immirgation may or may not have a impact in this country. Anti-fascist campaigners and MPs have condemned government plans for a new points-based immigration system that could see people denied British citizenship if they get involved in "unpatriotic activities."
In one of the most controversial consultation briefs to date, Home Secretary Alan Johnson unveiled the new points-based system for acquiring British nationality which will take into account applicants' record of behaviour in addition to their labour skills and qualifications.
The government will today launch proposals for a new points system for immigrants seeking British citizenship, as it tries to deflect accusations that it has lost control of the country's borders.
The home secretary, Alan Johnson, will launch the consultation paper, which proposes that those wanting a passport could earn points for speaking English and doing community work, and lose points for anti-social behaviour, such as protesting against British troops.
The eve of the launch was marred when the Home Office was forced to confirm that a suspected illegal immigrant had smuggled himself into Britain under a coach carrying officials from the UK Border Agency who were returning from working in France. An inquiry has been launched, but officials say the vehicle's driver will not be fined because he carried out sufficient checks before setting off through the Channel tunnel .
The suspected illegal immigrant hid in a space next to the fuel tank and took flight once the coach reached Britain. The driver tried to catch him, but was unsuccessful.
A Home Office spokesman said: "An illegal entrant entered Dover by hiding underneath a coach returning from Coquelles, in France. The coach was contracted by the UK Border Agency.
"A full investigation is being conducted. This is further evidence of the extreme and dangerous illegal measures that are being taken to enter the UK."
Under the new proposals, immigrants will have to wait ten years before being granted a UK passport, compared to five years under the current system.
In an article in today's News of the World, Johnson wrote: "Already we require people earn the right to become citizens by paying taxes, speaking English and obeying the law ... I will go even further, unveiling my new citizenship proposals which will require people earn points for, among other things, their skills, their job and their qualifications.
"Bad behaviour will be penalised, and only those with enough points will earn the right to a British passport. No longer will there be an automatic link between temporary work and becoming a permanent UK citizen."
The home secretary predicted a short-term fall in migrant numbers from outside Europe due to the government's clampdown and because the recession makes Britain a less attractive place to live.
Migrants from outside the EU are already subject to a points-based system, introduced last year, which allows entry into the UK only if they have skills needed by the British economy.
A Home Office spokesperson said: "The points-based system has already proved to be a powerful tool for controlling migration for the benefit of both British people and the economy. We have already announced our intention to consult on applying these principles to the path to citizenship."
The Tory immigration spokesman, Damian Green, accused the government of "spin": "There never has been an automatic right to British citizenship. It is simply that this government has let an unprecedented number of people obtain citizenship, issuing someone with a British passport every five minutes. This is an act of desperation by a Government that ... has let immigration run out of control."
How low can it get for the Aryan Martyrs' Brigade issues death threat against anti-fascism activist Weyman Bennett, while student attacked after BNP protest
Far-right activists have launched a campaign of intimidation and violence against political opponents including a series of death threats and physical attacks.
Hardline fascists are targeting students and leading anti-racism activists who campaigned against the British National party in June's European elections.
A group calling itself the Aryan Martyrs' Brigade has issued threats including a "death warrant" sent to Weyman Bennett, the joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism, stating he will be killed before the end of the year "for crimes against all loyal white patriots and British nationalists".
The threat, which the police are investigating and has a picture of Bennett in cross hairs, states: "We know exactly what you look like and what venues you frequent and can strike at will. The police, special branch, MI5, Searchlight cannot save you from the bullets coming your way. No matter where you are, we will get you, all we need is a lock on your mobile phone signal and you are one dead nigger."
Others have received threatening emails and at least one prominent activist was attacked after his picture appeared on an extreme rightwing website that was taken during protests against the BNP.
"There has definitely been an upsurge in attacks and intimidation since the European elections," said Bennett. "The fringe rightwing groups appeared to be on their best behaviour when the BNP were campaigning but once the election was over they seem to be trying to take their revenge on those of us who were prominent in the anti-fascist campaign."
The increase in rightwing violence comes after Scotland Yard admitted it was deploying more resources to monitor far-right extremists amid fears of a terrorist attack. Commander Shaun Sawyer told a meeting organised by the Muslim Safety Forum last month that there was a growing threat from the far right.
"I fear they will have a spectacular …they will carry out an attack that will lead to a loss of life or injury to a community somewhere," he said.
Sawyer added that more specialist officers needed to be deployed to counter the threat from far-right groups.
Bennett, who has received threats in the past, has been told by the police to take the latest death threat more seriously.
"Standing up against people like the BNP you do sometimes get verbal threats and intimidation but this appears to be more serious," he said. "I don't intend to stop organising anti-racism events or confronting the fascists in the BNP but something like this does make me think more about my personal security."
One of the people who has been assaulted in recent weeks is Gary McNally, who helped organise a Love Music Hate Racism festival in Stoke-on-Trent in May. After the European elections, when the BNP gained two MEPs, the 23-year-old attended a protest outside a meeting in Blackpool. Several photographs of the student appeared on the extremist Redwatch website, which is understood to be linked to the Aryan Martyrs' Brigade, alongside the slogan "Remember places, traitors' faces, they'll all pay for their crimes". A few days later McNally was attacked.
"I was about 200 yards from my house and I felt something smash against my face and I heard the words, 'You are a disgrace to your country,' and I saw a pair of shoes as I fell to the ground," he said.
McNally, a student at StaffordshireUniversity, was taken to hospital where he was treated for cuts and bruises to his face and head.
"After I had been hit I thought I had gone blind in my left eye. The attack has left me very scared – the BNP put on this respectable front but I suppose this is the reality of what happens if you publicly stand up and disagree with them."
Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP, said the attacks and threats had nothing to do with the party.
"It is rather ironic that they are complaining about being attacked when they use similar tactics themselves," he added.
Council housing always used to be one of the great divides between Labour and the Tories. Even as the ideological hostility that new Labour had towards council housing began to bite, the mythology remained.
New Labour may have been forcing local authorities to sell off or transfer their council housing stock and allowing fewer and fewer new council houses to be built, but we could always argue that the Tories would be worse.
It is understandable, then, that a deafening silence roared out of Downing Street as the Tories announced that, in government, they would support building tens of thousands of council houses. For the two million households in Britain sitting on council house waiting lists, this must have come as welcome - if perplexing - news.
I will come back, later, to questions on how the Conservative Party could have undergone such a Pauline conversion to council housing. We should begin, though, with a look at how Labour has found itself trumped by one of its own best cards. It all goes back to the Faustian pact of the Blair/Brown era.
Both men were convinced that public spending was a mixed blessing for Labour. They wanted to be credited for re-investing in the social infrastructure that had been starved of cash during the Thatcher years.
What they didn't want was the political flak that went with it. This was where new Labour stepped in with ideas pinched from the US.
"My daughter could do better than this with her Lego. The Tories only have to promise to fall out of bed in the morning to improve on this record" In practice, it was an approach now referred to as Enron economics - the trick was to take as much spending as possible "off balance sheet." This was where the whole panoply of private finance initiatives, public-private partnerships and the like came in.
In theory, the deals transferred risk from public-sector investment to the private provider. In practice, it merely transferred assets. The private sector proved remarkably good at transferring risk back to the public sector when things went wrong.
Although taxpayers paid out for the construction contracts (and huge interest payments during the lease-back period), the big bills "disappeared" from public expenditure (and government debt) figures.
As with Enron, however, the bills eventually came in. In an era full of sleights of hand, the retreat from council house-building gave Gordon Brown the gift that would allow him to pretend to be an economic miracle worker.
Economic growth was to be driven from the deregulation of the financial services industry. While public debt was to be reigned in, private (and personal) debt was unleashed into an era of rapacious self-indulgence. Cutting back on council house-building would have the effect of pushing huge numbers of households into the private sector. It would guarantee a permanent excess of housing demand over housing supply.
When credit was abundant and cheap, this would fuel an inflationary house spiral which, in turn, would deliver huge buckets of cash into the Chancellor's coffers. Every time anyone paid tax on their property moves, the Chancellor's cash registers rang. The retreat from council house-building guaranteed that nothing would take the steam out of the speculative housing momentum, until avarice over-reached itself.
While this may have produced temporary plaudits at Mansion House dinners in the City, it did nothing to change the housing prospects of the poor.
Inexorably, the screw was being tightened on local authorities. New Labour rigged the game of social house-building.
It became almost impossible for councils to hang on to the stock they had, let alone build any more.In the year to March 2009, new Labour had reduced council house-building in England to 520. That means 10 a week.
My daughter could do better than this with her Lego. The Tories only have to promise to fall out of bed in the morning to improve on this record. However, as they step out into the morning sunlight wearing Labour's pyjamas, I suspect that something different is happening in Tory high command.
They will be aware that, for all the Treasury huffing and puffing, very little is coming out of the banking system to fuel new mortgage lending. Transactions are 40 per cent down on pre-crisis levels and there is deep uncertainly about whether the recent recovery in house prices is a real recovery or just a lull before the next storm.
More to the point, the prospects of new private-sector house-building are bleak. During the binge years, developers were busy amassing land banks, upon which to construct their empires. Many did so on ludicrously overvalued land prices. Even the Tories know there is fat chance of anyone agreeing to pay these prices now.
Moreover, the Tories now find themselves having swept the board in council elections, at a time when the years ahead are going to be tough.
If national government is going to be constrained, why not play the local democracy card? Putting money into council house-building will be infinitely more efficient than passing it to the banks and hoping they will pass wind in the direction of the poor.
If the Tories recognise that restoring the public trust in Parliament is going to take a long, long time, why not begin the democratic renewal from the base?
Localism is a card that can be played as strongly from the right as from the left.
If Cameron is serious about his commitments to decentralised energy, then it makes sense for him to connect the local energy agenda to the local housing one.
Add to this the prospect of translating the plan, in terms of local employment and economic regeneration, and you have the sort of package that Labour used to build its bedrock of support upon. It is not beyond the reach of the Labour Party to reconnect with the virtues of council house-building.
All it has to do is end the love affair with big business and the City of London. How perverse it would be if, in failing to do so, the Labour Party found itself hung by one of its own great flagship achievements. Pass me the Lego.
I cant help to wonder if the Liberal Democrat Birmingham Councillor has done himself any justice knowing that the forces are not with him.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is under pressure to sack one of his rising stars in Birmingham after city councillor Ayoub Khan failed to overturn a judge’s ruling that he behaved in a “scurrilous” manner by attempting to smear a Labour opponent when giving evidence in an election court.
Coun Khan, who is a cabinet member in Birmingham and his party’s prospective candidate for Ladywood at the next general election, hoped to clear his name after Elections Commissioner Timothy Straker QC found that he had made up a “sordid” story in an attempt to falsely accuse Aston Labour councillor Muhammed Afzal of witness nobbling.
Mr Straker, in an election trial in Birmingham last year, also found that Coun Khan, who is a barrister, made up a “unpleasant and unsubstantiated” claim that Coun Afzal’s supporters were responsible for an arson attack on a Range Rover owned by a Liberal Democrat supporter. More than two years after the trial, Coun Khan (Lib Dem Aston) finally exausted grounds for appeal when two High Court judges ruled against an application for a judicial review into Mr Straker’s findings.
Lord Justice Leverson and Mr Justice Wilkie said there was “no sensible basis” for Coun Khan’s claim that Mr Straker’s findings were perverse or unsubstantiated by evidence. His assertion that Mr Straker’s judgement was flawed was “barely even arguable”.
The High Court ruling prompted an immediate attack by city council Labour group leader Sir Albert Bore, who has written to Mr Clegg urging him to “take immediate action” against Coun Khan.
In a letter to the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Albert said: “Can you please explain why the Liberal Democrats call on others to hold high standards in public office but have taken no action whatsoever against a man who is running for parliament under your party banner after he was described by a judge as bringing forward a scurrilous and unwarranted allegation whilst under oath in an Election Court and was reported to the High Court for that conduct.
“The public will see the case of Coun Khan is a test as to whether you are serious about the need for politicians to take urgent action to restore public trust.
“If you fail to take urgent action against this leading local Liberal Democrat, we will know that your public statements are no more than hollow rhetoric.”
Sir Albert added: “Now that both the election Court and the High Court have found decisively against Coun Khan, are you going to ignore the judgements of the court or follow through your professed principles?
“A Liberal Democrat inquiry has been claimed to be going on in the case of Coun Khan since last May. Nothing has been reported and it appears to have been buried in the long grass because, despite being the subject of the most serious adverse findings in the High Court, Coun Khan remains your party’s prospective candidate for Ladywood.”
Coun Khan now faces a possible unprofessional conduct hearing, which could result in his suspension as a barrister.
He was reported to the Bar Standards board by Coun Afzal, who alleges that Coun Khan broke the Bar’s code of conduct.
Coun Khan remains determined to fight on in an attempt to clear his name.
He said: “I am disappointed at the judgement. But I was elected by the people of Aston just two weeks after this case in the face of these allegations from my rivals.
“I will continue to fight to clean up Asian politics in Aston and believe Labour are making these complaints because they know they face a fight to hold onto Ladywood.
“For Labour to accuse me of anything in Aston is the pot calling the kettle black.”
“I was treated as a party rather than a witness but was never in a position to defend myself. Now I will be able to present a full defence to the Bar Standards Board.”
I can only give my profound disgust that the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is contiuning to face discrimination by the Burmese junta they want to continue to hold on to power as they cannot stand democracy in Burma.
Many human rights abuse has continued to take place in Burma and if it was not for Aung San Suu Kyi supporters worldwide I am sure the abuse will carry on behind the scenes.
Burmese court has postponed delivering its verdict in the trial of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
The court had been due to rule on the case on Friday, but the verdict has now been delayed until 11 August.
The judges said they needed more time to review the case, according to Western diplomats in Rangoon.
Aung San Suu Kyi is accused of breaching the terms of her house arrest by allowing an uninvited American to stay in her home.
Despite international calls for her release, a guilty verdict has been widely expected.
Analysts suggest that the delay may signal a belated recognition on the part of the government at the level of anger over Ms Suu Kyi's prosecution.
Riot police surrounded the prison on Friday, following warnings in the local media that any protests against a guilty verdict would not be tolerated.
All roads leading to Insein prison - where the trial is being held - were blocked by barbed-wire barricades.
But in the event, the streets remained quiet as news got out of the postponement. The trial had initially been expected to last a few days, but has now dragged on for more than two months.
Analysts say the Burmese junta may use this trial to make sure the popular pro-democracy leader is still in detention during elections planned for early next year.
Ms Suu Kyi's international legal counsel, Jared Genser, said the delay was an attempt by the junta to deflect international criticism.
"It is in some ways a smart move - push off the verdict until the middle of August when numerous government and United Nations officials around the world will be on vacation," he told the French news agency AFP.
"But it remains to be seen whether this ploy will work or if anticipation will be heightened in the run-up to the issuance of the verdict."
Ms Suu Kyi faces five years in jail if she is convicted of violating the terms of her house arrest.
She is accused of allowing American well-wisher John Yettaw to stay at her lakeside home in Rangoon after he swam there. Mr Yettaw has said he swam to her home to warn her he had a vision that she would be assassinated.
Lawyers for Ms Suu Kyi have not disputed the events, but say she had no control over the situation and that the guards around her home should have kept Mr Yettaw away. Her lawyers have also argued that the law she has been charged under is part of a constitution abolished 25 years ago.
Her Burmese lawyer, Nyan Win, said Ms Suu Kyi was "preparing for the worst", stockpiling books and medicines in anticipation of a long prison sentence.
Ms Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won elections in 1988 but was never allowed to take power.
The 64-year-old has spent nearly 14 of the last 20 years in detention, much of it at her Rangoon home.
Shortly afterwards, the Tory leader was talking about how focused he was on the forthcoming general election, and the effects of the expenses scandal.
He said: 'The public are rightly, I think, p****** off - sorry I can't say that in the morning - angry with politicians.'
Aides stressed that Mr Cameron had apologised immediately for the latter slip, and pointed out that 't***' was not defined as a swear word under radio guidelines.
The interview is part of a fresh bid by the Tories to appeal to younger voters and destroy the view the party is one for the older generation.
Mr Cameron famously said in a radio interview three years ago that 'lots of people call me Dave' - creating a moniker that has stayed with him.
Today, he revealed he still asked himself whether he was the right person to become Prime Minister and lead the country.
'Of course you think all the time about "am I going to be able to take those really big decisions, take that responsibility, suffer the consequences when things go wrong, take difficult decision that could involve sending people into harm's way?", he said.
'I did think about that, though, before standing for the leadership of the Conservative Party, because I always thought there was a good chance of winning that.
'I thought very carefully "am I able to make those decisions, am I tough enough, am I strong enough to do it?".
'And I thought "yes I want to do this, I can do this and I am going to give it my best shot".'
Holy tax increases! Here's a right pair of caped raiders.
Led by greedy Vatman David Cameron and his Robbin' sidekick George Osborne, the Tories are secretly plotting to raise VAT to 20%.
The move is revealed in a leaked letter sent to business bosses that sets out the party's agenda. It says a 5% rise in VAT is "very likely" if the Tories get into power. In the letter, the head of Conservative Intelligence Tim Montgomerie says that shadow chancellor George Osborne will slash public spending in an attempt to cut government borrowing.
It refers to Tory plans to close the budget deficit as being built on 80% spending cuts and 20% revenue rises.
The letter says: "An increase in VAT to 20% seems very likely, but VAT is a regressive tax that falls most heavily on poorer people." Labour took VAT from 17.5% to 15% in December to boost the economy. But the cut expires in January 2010.
Mr Montgomerie also discloses that senior Tories are at war over tax rises for business, while private Tory polling says voters are opposed to tax rises on low income families. "Ken Clarke is proving to be an important ally for business within the shadow cabinet," the letter reads.
"He is leading the resistance to any increase in general business taxation."
It is the second time the leaked letter has embarrassed the Tories.
Last week the Mirror revealed David Cameron was secretly looking at making NHS patients pay for meals and maybe even to stay in hospital.
Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson said: "If David Cameron has a secret tax plan he should be honest about it."
A poll yesterday showed the Tories had an 18-point lead over Labour.
The ComRes survey for the Independent puts them on 42%, Labour 24% and the Lib Dems on 16%. Repeated at a General Election it would hand David Cameron a 150-seat majority.
The red-green dissent and action over the imminent closure of the Vestas’ turbine manufacturing factory on the Isle of Wight is brightly gathering momentum, and from whatever way you look at it, there are legitimate reasons to nationalise Vestas’ Isle of Wight factory.
In the short-term, this moment not only represents significant ideological crossroads for the party, but a chance to save 600 preciously skilled jobs. At a time when the party is staring down the barrel of a gun and New Labourism is drawing to its natural close, nationalisation of the plant could be the platform Labour needs for a dramatic late reversal of its fortunes – a seminal, telling moment of vision, clarity and innovation. In the longer-term, this red-green chorus may well be a glimpse at the future.
The truth is that despite rising profits, Vestas as a Danish company and corporate profiteers, do not have sufficient orders and are closing the factory to make the turbines more cheaply in the US, where there is greater demand. As Ed Miliband points out in his piece at Comment is Free:
"We are unlikely to be a centre for onshore wind production, if up and down the country, and on the Isle of Wight, onshore wind applications are consistently turned down."
It should be noted that SERA had previously flagged up the fact that Conservative-run councils had opposed 80% of wind farm applications submitted to them since David Cameron became the leader of the Conservative party, whereas Labour councils had approved 70%.
The UK is the windiest country in Europe, so much so that we could power parts of our country several times over using this free fuel. The fact is we will need a mix of both onshore and offshore wind energy to work towards the targets on climate change and the UK’s energy security.
To overlook wind energy or put too high a reliance on offshore wind generation and fledgling micro-generation technology would condemn the UK to: missing our renewable energy targets; falling short of our commitment to tackle climate change; drifting away from energy independence at a time when it is essential; and contributing to a significant deficit in the country’s short-term energy supply. At this stage, it is unclear as to whether David Cameron appreciates or even fully understands this.
Glancing over our shoulders, many members of the Labour party will have been deeply affected by the impact of coal-pit closures, and also the pernicious influence of the West’s oil addiction on global foreign policy. For these reasons, there is a genuine sense of hope and optimism when the UK’s renewable energy potential is cited as the "Saudi Arabia of green energy". As an island, Britain has 40% of Europe’s wind resource, with strong winds both on and offshore – this is a position we should maximise as a country. Most promising of all is the glittering potential that exists for green collar jobs.
It is clear that the previous tensions between trade unionists protecting energy industry and jobs, and green campaigners protecting the environment, represent a fractious relationship of the past. At a time when there 60 applicants for every vacancy on the Isle of Wight, this growing red-green consensus recognises that to endanger 600 jobs and disperse a skill base that has been nurtured on the Isle of Wight within a fledgling green industry would be disastrous for the country, its manufacturing base and the climate change agenda as a whole.
Although Ed Miliband has met with the sit-in protestors, offered assistance in re-training those made unemployed, awarded £6m to the wind turbine firm's research centre to create some new jobs and promised to shake up the planning system to speed up wind projects, if Labour is seriously committed to preserving the skill base that has been nurtured on the Isle of Wight within a fledgling green industry, and also providing UK industry with an accessible source of turbines (as opposed UK firms shipping over turbines from Germany and Denmark), the substantive solution is nationalisation of the plant. This outcome would also inevitably see Ed Miliband graduate from activists' favourite to the party’s new best hope.
In electoral terms, nationalisation would surely claw back some of Labour’s disillusioned, dejected and dispersed masses - after Norwich, Labour activists need some hope. But looking ahead, I think this current red-green resonance may be a prophetic allegiance and a natural consensus to build the future foundations of the party, regardless of whether or not this happens in the political wilderness.
I would like to see the peace process in the Middle East come to some agreement but given that both sides can not get even give an inch to come close tells you something about the peace process in the Middle East my only hope to all my brothers & sisters is not to give hope and contiune with the struggle in a peaceful way.
Israel has dug in its heels in a disagreement with the US over a potential military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities to halt its alleged progress towards nuclear weapons capacity.
"We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table," Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak insisted, following discussions with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
"This is our policy and we mean it," Mr Barak blustered. "We recommend to others to take the same position but we cannot dictate it to anyone."
While the United States also reserves the right to use force if need be, the Obama administration has been playing down that possibility while it tries to draw Iran into talks about its disputed nuclear programme.
Mr Gates urged patience and said that Washington still hoped to have an initial answer about negotiations in the Autumn.
Israeli leaders fear that the US is prizing contact with Iran over its ties to Israel.
The issue of how to deal with Iran's advancement toward nuclear proficiency has become one of the most public differences between the new administrations in Tel Aviv and Washington.
Mr Gates's visit to Israel was believed to be aimed at dissuading Israel from a pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear sites.
But Mr Barak's comment seemed to indicate that Mr Gates made no visible headway in getting Israel to soften its line.
President Obama pledged a new initiative towards Iran during his presidential campaign.
Mr Obama argues that a strike would upset the fragile security balance in the Middle East, perhaps triggering a new nuclear arms race and leaving everyone, including Israel and Iran, worse off.
Israel is also under pressure to freeze construction in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, land the Palestinians want for their eventual state and capital. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has so far resisted and the issue is a growing sore point between the US and Israel.
The US says continued Israeli construction on lands claimed by the Palestinians threatens to undermine future peace talks.
Israel insists that some expansion must be permitted to accommodate the "natural growth" of settler families.
The number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank is now 304,569, a 2.3 per cent increase since January.
The High Court has thrown out a legal bid by a Palestinian human rights group to hold the British government to account for its "complicity" in Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
Ramallah-based Al-Haq accused the government of failing in its international legal obligations to stop "aid and trade" with Israel, including supplying arms, following Israeli incursions into Gaza in December and January which led to the deaths of 1,400 Palestinians.
The government argued that, were it to condemn Israel for its actions, it would sour relations between the two states.
This is despite Britain being accused last week at the United Nations, along with other UN members states, of silence over Israel's continued blockade of the ravaged West Bank region.
Addressing a UN meeting in Geneva last week, general assembly president Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann accused Britain and other member states of "standing silent" while Israel breached UN resolutions calling for an end to the blockade of Gaza.
"With governments and the UN standing mute, unwilling or unable to provide assistance or protection to the people of Gaza," he said, "international civil society had taken the lead."
Referring to civilian convoys which deliver aid to the besieged region, often in the face of hostile opposition from the Israeli military, he stated: "The UN would do well to follow that example in bringing pressure to bear on the occupying power."
He also reminded UN members states of their obligation "to protect any civilian population facing violations of international humanitarian law."
But today at the High Court in London, a judge ruled that the court was "not competent" to deal with what was an issue involving the government's foreign policy.
Lord Justice Pill, sitting with Mr Justice Cranston, said that Al-Haq's claim sought condemnation of Israel and for the courts of England and Wales to decide whether Israel was in breach of its international obligations.
The judge said this was "beyond the competence" of the domestic courts and ruled: "While there may exceptionally be situations in which the court will intervene in foreign policy issues, this case is far from being one of them."
In his written judgement, Justice Cranston cited Foreign Office claims that granting the application would "imperil amicable relations between states" and that "compelling the government to take a public position on the matters in the claim would risk hindering the UK's engagement with peace efforts in the Middle East."
He further concurred with Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who argued that, to allow the case, would mean that any non-governmental organisation anywhere in the world would be able to bring a claim for judicial review in similar circumstances.
But Palestine Solidarity Campaign director of campaigns Sarah Colbourne said: "This ruling does not negate the complicity of the British government in the crimes against the Palestinian people.
"In international law, the government is bound to uphold the rights of the Palestinian people whenever they are violated."
A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman said: "The UK takes its domestic and international legal obligations very seriously. We vigorously defended the proceedings and are pleased that the court has agreed with us that the case was wholly inappropriate for resolution by the domestic courts."
