British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to resign within a year. I want him to resign today. Had he resigned yesterday, it would have been better.

There are many reasons for the revolt against Blair from within and without the Labor Party. The atrocious Israeli war on Lebanon, however, was the straw that broke the camel's back. It broke his political career in Britain.

As an Arab, I am not the only one who holds this view. The 'New York Times' and the 'Washington Post', both US newspapers, have the same opinion. The US was fully responsible for involving Britain in the war on Iraq, and then in the rejection of an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon in spite of the exaggerated Israeli response. All these incidents made Blair's closest aides revolt against him, including government ministers and under-secretaries who are all Labor MPs.

The opinion of the US press about Blair's forthcoming end is far lenient than mine. However, mine remains more lenient than the opinion of some British people about their premier who, attaching himself to a US imperialist policy that wants to subjugate the whole world, not only the Middle East, destroyed his political legacy.

Renowned British writer John Pilger wrote an article entitled 'The Real Threat We Face in Britain Is Blair', in which he mocked allegations of 'terrorist cells' and the threat to civil aviation. He accused Blair of being afraid of illusory terrorism. He blames him for about 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. He charged Blair with knowing about Israel's plan to attack Lebanon in advance and agreed on plans to strike Iran.

Pilger reminded his readers that "in 2001, the Israeli press disclosed that he had secretly given the 'green light' to Sharon's bloody invasion of the West Bank". The result of this policy against Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq was the spread of anger among British Muslims.

We are not the only party who are angry, though. In the latest opinion poll in Britain, 73% said that the Blair government's policies increased the threat of terror to Britain, while 62% said that British policy must break up with the US in order to decrease the threat of terror. Scores of former ministers, politicians, writers and artists signed an open message to Blair warning him of the dangers and mistakes of his policies.

I personally cannot understand Blair's relationship with US President George Bush. While nobody denies that Blair is intelligent, there is consensus that Bush is stupid to the extent that a right wing television show discussed his stupidity. Still, the intelligent Prime Minister backed a stupid policy that increased the threat of terror worldwide, while he claimed he was fighting it, and spread hatred of Britain as well as the US. Tony Blair was supposed to have some ethics, but he supported all the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians and the Lebanese, merely because they were supported by the neo-conservative US administration. I almost believed once that Blair hated Arabs and Muslims deep in his heart and that he supported US policy simply because it was against them. However, I cannot find evidence to support this opinion, because I find no logical reason for Blair's slavish subordination to Bush. It has reached an extent that Blair's nickname is 'Bush's poodle'.

Sarcasm, not opposition, is the worst thing a politician can face. A few days ago, I saw a caricature of Blair in which he says "I am not Bush's Poodle, but Rupert Murdoch's Poodle" in reference to the Australian-turned-American media tycoon, who owns "The Times' and 'Fox News' in addition to several hundred other media organizations worldwide. Blair had given Bush a woolen pullover as a gift. I saw a British cartoon in which Blair opens a gift box from Bush to find a dog leash!

Still with cartoons; there was a funny one of Blair holding on to the door of his official headquarters with his hands and feet because he does not want to leave it. This could be a reference to his clinging to office despite increased opposition. It seems that the British Prime Minister has Arab origins!

Blair's mistakes are too dangerous to be depicted in caricature. They were fatal, or they killed many of us. John Kampfner wrote a cover story in the 'New Statesman' entitled 'Blood on His Hands'. In this article, Kampfiner says Blair did not stop the Israeli attack on Lebanon, of which he had prior knowledge, because he did not want to. This makes him an accomplice to the Israeli crime. This has also "stripped (the UK) of influence across vast stretches of the world" and exposed the British people to danger. Last week, 19 British nationals were killed in many areas, from Iraq to Afghanistan. Even in Jordan a British tourist was killed. My questions are: Why are British nationals killed in Iraq and elsewhere? How did subordination to the Bush administration affect Britain in general and Blair in particular?

The only result was that Arabs and Muslims linked the two States together, which makes it easier for terrorists. The US-British (Blair) policy is like a recruitment center for terrorists. While I condemn and refuse any excuse for terrorism in general, I also condemn the policy of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and confess that I am happy because he is humiliated. He once deceived me, making me think of him as a politician of rare caliber who is humane and ethical. I discovered after his nine years in office that he is far worse than others because he is a skillful deceiver.

I leave the final word on Blair to former US President Jimmy Carter, who said in an interview with a British newspaper last week that he was "surprised and extremely disappointed" by Blair's lack of leadership and his subordination to George Bush."

"I think that more than any other person in the world, the Prime Minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington - and he has not," he added.

And because he has not, he is now paying the price!

Blair, who delivered the news during a visit to a north London school, said an annual Labour Party conference later this month would be his last as party leader.

He didn't give an exact date for his departure, saying that is his decision to make.

"I'm not going to set a precise date now. I don't think that's right. I will do that at a future date. I'll do it in the interests of the country and, depending on the circumstances, of the time," said Blair.

"I think the precise timetable has to be left up to me and in the proper way."

Pressure had been mounting on Blair all week to announce when he would step down. Several Labour MPs resigned their government posts Wednesday after insisting on his resignation, and news reports said Blair and Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who is likely to be the next prime minister, had arguments in Blair's office about a handover date.

Blair's popularity in opinion polls has plummeted due to government scandals over mismanagement, and controversy over British military participation in Iraq and the increasingly violent Afghanistan.

Fearing a loss at the polls in the next election in 2009, many in the party have been calling for fresh leadership.

'Difficult week': PM

Blair began Thursday's statement with an apology to the British public, saying the past week of internal strife was not the Labour party's finest hour.

The prime minister said he would have preferred to make the decision about when to leave office his own way, but said it was "pretty obvious" he wouldn't have a chance to do that.

Blair sharply rebuked colleagues who brought the party's internal split into the public eye.

"It's important for the Labour Party to understand that it's the public that comes first and it's the public that matters," he said.

"We can't treat the public as irrelevant bystanders."

Blair said the government must return its focus to important events going on in the world and at home.

"It's been a somewhat difficult week but I think it's time now to move on and I think we will," he said.

The school visit had been previously scheduled, and Blair spent about 15 minutes speaking with students before making his statement to a lone television camera, away from the throngs of reporters gathered outside.

Brown supports PM's decision

Brown, who spoke to reporters Thursday during a visit to Glasgow, said he would support whatever decision Blair made.

"This cannot be about private arrangements, but what is in the best interest of the party and most important of all, what is in the best interest of the country," said Brown.

There are reports Blair could officially resign during Labour's conference in spring 2007, clearing the way for a leadership race that could last up to 12 weeks.

Labour officials hope to have a new leader in place well before the party's fall conference in 2007.

After leading the Labour Party to its third straight election win last year, Blair said he would not seek a fourth term.

He had also promised to give his successor time to settle into office before the next election.

At the same time Chancellor Gordon Brown, tipped to succeed Blair and accused by some of mounting a "coup" against his long-term ally turned bitter foe, meanwhile also came under renewed attack.

The continuing mood of poison in the corridors of power was reflected by comments by former minister Charles Clarke, who slammed Brown in an interview with the London Evening Standard.

"His behaviour has been absolutely stupid ... a lot of people are very upset and cross about the way he's behaved," he said.

The issue of when Blair will go has dogged him for nearly two years. In 2004 he said he would not stand for a fourth consecutive term of office but said he pledged to serve a full third term in office -- taking him through to 2008.

On Thursday Blair refused to set an exact date for his departure in his closely-watched statement, but said he will not be in office for Labour's annual party conference, or the next TUC conference, in September 2007.

But pressure remains on him to go earlier -- in particular because the Brownites want to take power well ahead of the summer break, to give them time to assert their authority before the annual political recess.

Newspaper reports Friday said the two men have reached an understanding where Blair will resign in May, triggering a six-week leadership election that will see his successor replace him by mid-June.

A poll published in The Daily Telegraph on Friday showed a majority of the British public think Blair should resign from office this year.

Some 65 percent of the general public, including 52 percent of Labour supporters, also think he should leave by early next year, the survey showed.

This week's fast-moving developments -- for some recalling the way prime minister Margaret Thatcher was brought down by her Conservative Party in 1990 -- were triggered by a newspaper report saying Blair planned to quit next July.

The days of political chaos were dubbed Labour's "moment of madness" by a long-term close ally of Blair, Peter Mandelson, the European Union trade chief.

"I hope that it will now move on and that the plotting and the shenanigans will be put behind them once and for all. They have got to concentrate on the needs of the country, not themselves," said Mandelson.

For most commentators Blair's statement was a victory for Brown, even if he did not get everything he wanted.

But many warned that the chancellor may have suffered from the image of having blood on his hands after the Downing Street coup.

"Gordon Brown has got to be extremely careful that when he becomes prime minister, this doesn't just appear to be something that he manoeuvred for his own personal gain," former chancellor Norman Lamont told the BBC.

"He is coming here in order to wash his hands, that are dripping with Lebanese blood, with Palestinian water," the group of Palestinians wrote in an ad placed in the al-Ayyam newspaper.

"We, the signatories... notables, intellectuals and political figures declare that Tony Blair is persona non-grata in our country."

The British prime minister came under fire at home during Israel's 34-day war with Hezbollah for lining up with the United States in refusing to back Lebanon's demands for an immediate truce.

The notice said Palestinian leaders should cancel Blair's trip. It was signed by members of smaller parties, university professors, activists from non-governmental organizations and hundreds of ordinary Palestinians.

The signatories did not include any politicians from Abbas' Fatah group or the governing militant Hamas movement.

Blair is expected to make a push for renewed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians during his visit. Peace negotiations collapsed in 2000 amid violence.

Asked to comment on the notice, a spokesman for the British consulate in Jerusalem said:

"The Prime Minister has announced that he will visit the Middle East soon and that his visit will deal with the fundamental issues surrounding both Lebanon and the Palestinians. There is anger and mistrust on all sides."

Blair's Downing Street office has said the prime minister planned to visit the Middle East shortly, but has declined to give further details.

His visit could be overshadowed by political woes at home, with Blair under increasing pressure to set out a timetable for his departure as prime minister after nine years in power.