Ministers have been forced on to the back foot in the past week after it was revealed that asylum seeker Mustaf Jama, wanted for the murder of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky, flew from Heathrow to Somalia using his sister's passport. He is believed to have been wearing a niqab, which has just a slit for eyes.

It subsequently emerged that immigration staff are legally entitled to ask any female passenger to lift her veil to verify her identity against passport photographs. But officers usually wave passengers through because they do not have the time to check everyone.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair yesterday joined the growing calls for change, saying airline passengers must remove any head-dress that covers their face. Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has consistently warned of the grave terror threat facing the country, said: "We must find methods of allowing people to take off the veil in a way that's dignified."

But a senior Home Office source insisted that existing law gave immigration officers wide-ranging rights. However, the department told Scotland on Sunday last week that it does not hold any centralised records of those checked or refused entry for failing to meet entry requirements.

Home Secretary John Reid is planning to enforce these legal rights before considering any more significant changes.

"Immigration officers can check beneath veils and they do this at every port of entry, every day of the week," the source added. "It is done sensitively and in private.

"Where they don't do it, I suspect it is more often to do with a lack of suspicion than lax procedures or overwork. But we recognise that this sort of thing should be the rule, not the exception."

The Immigration Act 1971 requires everyone entering the UK to satisfy an immigration officer as to their nationality and identity. Where there are sensitive or cultural reasons why it is not possible for a person to remove a veil or other garment at the immigration control, they will be taken to a private area where their identity can be verified.

The wall effectively annexes Israeli West Bank settlements, although they are considered illegal under international law. The settlements are fast-growing Israeli enclaves built on Palestinian land, their close-packed dwellings marching up once-forested hillsides like monochromatic Lego blocks. Bethlehem is surrounded by 27 settlements containing 73,000 people, according to Open Bethlehem, a local advocacy group. The settlements are connected by bypass roads that are off limits to Palestinians.

The wall and other Israeli restrictions on movement have made Christian and Muslim areas of the West Bank such as Bethlehem virtual ghettos.

Once, Bethlehem was easily accessible from Jerusalem. Now, for Palestinians, it's an ordeal of checkpoints, with their prison-style walkways covered with wire mesh, multiple turnstiles, baggage X-rays, metal detectors and document scrutiny. On any given day no one can predict when or even if he or she will be allowed to pass. It's a cruel roulette in which Palestinians gamble daily on getting to work or school on time, or getting a sick child to the hospital.

Foreign tourists see little of this from their buses on the way to Manger Square. These visitors get only a glimpse of a city withering under Israeli occupation. Tourism, traditionally Bethlehem's economic mainstay, has dropped dramatically. The Christian population, which was 80 percent in 1948, is now less than 20 percent. Christians traditionally have been among the more prosperous citizens, those with means to move elsewhere.

Less fortunate are residents of the Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem. On a recent visit to the camp, my companions and I climbed to the roof of an apartment house. Here we could see over the wall to a lush olive grove on the other side. "That was a park for the children from the camp," said Ayed Alazzeh, who runs the Lajee Center, a recreation and educational center in the camp. Now the wall makes the olive grove, which belongs to a local church, inaccessible to the children.

In December Alazzeh's 12-year-old nephew was shot and seriously wounded while playing on the balcony of his home. The shots came from Israeli soldiers manning a guard tower on the wall nearby, Alazzeh said.

The reality of life in Bethlehem today confounds the traditions of the Christmas story: How could the shepherds, abiding in their fields beyond the wall, visit the Christ child? And what about the Magi? Would they have the proper travel documents to enter Bethlehem? Would their gold, frankincense and myrrh be confiscated at a checkpoint? In the troubled "little town" of Bethlehem, the angels' song of "Peace on Earth" seems faint indeed.

The surveys have put the spotlight on the plight of the town, which has been fast losing its indigenous Christian population since the construction of the Israeli wall plunged Bethlehem into economic crisis.

The two surveys show that American perceptions of the town are wildly at odds with the perceptions of those who live there.

While the Christians of Bethlehem overwhelmingly (78%) blame the exodus of Christians from the town on Israel's blockade, Americans are more likely (45.9%) to blame it on Islamic politics and are reluctant (7.4%) to blame Israel.

And while four out of ten Americans believe that the wall exists for Israel's security, more than nine out of ten Bethlehemites believe it is part of a plan by Israel to confiscate Palestinian land.

The Zogby survey shows strong support for the town in the US, where 65.5% of the population want the UN to list it as a world heritage site. Americans are also strongly in favour (80.6%) of Bethlehem retaining a strong Christian presence.

Americans are also ambivalent about the Israeli wall, with 31.5% in favour of it, with another 31.6% opposed.

But more than two-thirds of Americans believe Bethlehem is unsafe to visit, while 80% of Bethlehemites consider their town safe for visitors.

While the US survey showed that Americans are skeptical about Muslims and Christians living contentedly alongside each other - only 17% thought they lived together in peaceful coexistence - the Palestinian survey showed they do: around 90% of Christians said they had Muslim friends, and vice-versa.

The Israeli government could well be shaken by the discovery that Americans' tolerance of the wall would be strained by the discovery that it separates communities and families, cuts Bethlehem off from Jerusalem, and requires the seizure of privately-owned land.

US Christians, meanwhile, are likely to be shocked by the discovery that seven out of ten Christians in Bethlehem believe Israel treats the town's Christian heritage with brutality or indifference.

The Bethlehem poll, which was carried out by the Palestinian Centre for research and Cultural Dialogue, shows on the other hand that more than two-thirds (73.3%) of Bethlehem's Christians believe that the Palestinian Authority treats Christian heritage with respect. That result will surprise some who believe that the election of Hamas has strained Christian-Muslim relations in the town.

Leila Sansour, Open Bethlehem's Chief Executive, says:

"Our US poll shows overwhelming support for Bethlehem's Christian heritage, yet our survey of Bethlehem's own citizens shows the city cannot retain this heritage and its Christian community while the wall remains.

"The choice is stark. Either the wall stays and Bethlehem ceases to be a Christian town. Or Bethlehem retains its Christian population - in which case the wall has to come down. The international community needs to wake up to what is happening and choose."

KEY FINDINGS OF THE TWO SURVEYS

1) 59.1 % of Americans thought that the population of Bethlehem was either Muslim or Jewish or a mix of both. Only 15.6 % knew it was a mix of Christians and Muslims.
2) When asked where the city was located 58% of Americans thought it was in Israel. Only 26% knew that the town of Jesus birth was located in the Occupied Territories.
3) When told that the population of Bethlehem is a mix of Christians and Muslims 25.1% of Americans thought that they lived together in bitter dispute while only 17 % thought they lived together in peaceful coexistence. 26.4 % thought it was neither.
4) In the Bethlehem survey 87.5% of Muslims said they had Christian friends and 92.2% of Christians said they had Muslim friends.
5) The Bethlehem poll shows that 22.4% of Bethlehem residents regard unemployment as their main problem, 5.9% cite emigration, 4.3% think it is the expropriation of their land by Israel - and 67.4% see it is as a combination of these four factors. When asked about the key current factor in the crisis: 38.1% of respondents said the Israeli occupation, 39.7% blamed the Israeli wall while 19.2% looked to the rifts within their own society.
6) A large number of Americans respondents (36.9%) were not aware of the Israeli wall in and around Bethlehem. Of those who knew, equal numbers of Americans either supported or opposed the wall: 31.5% supported 31.6% opposed.
7) The American poll showed that 40.6% of Americans thought that the wall is there for Israel's security, while 19.4% thought that the wall is there to confiscate land from Bethlehem residents for the sake of Israel's expansion.
8) In Bethlehem, 6% of respondents believe the wall is a temporary measure, while 91.1% regard it as a premeditated plan by Israel to confiscate their land. The wall features as a bigger problem for Christians: 42.1% of Christians refer to it as the key problem facing the city, as opposed to 36.3% of Muslims.
9) In the last 5 years about 400 Christian families left Bethlehem. When asked for the reason 45.9% of Americans thought it was the rise of Islamic extremism while only 7.4% attributed their exodus to the Israeli occupation.
10) In stark contrast, 78% of Bethlehem's Christians said they were leaving because of the Israeli occupation - while only 3.2% blamed the rise of Islamic movements. 12.5% attributed it to both.
11) 75% of people in Bethlehem said they are depressed by family members moving abroad. Among those who chose to stay, 20.5% said that work or family commitments were the major deterrents.
12) 63.2% of Bethlehem Christians have at least one relative who has emigrated, against 32,8% of Muslims. When asked if many of their relatives have left the country, the contrast sharpens: Christian respondents stand at 20.1%, against 5.4% among Muslims.
13) 50.7% of Bethlehem Christians have thought of emigrating, against 43.6% among Muslims.
14) 15.7% of Bethlehem Christians said they are in the process of emigrating - against 8.3% among Muslims. Worryingly, 19.2% of those are young and 36% have BA degrees or above. Of those in the process of emigrating, 72.45% are male.
15) Americans think that more Muslim lands than Christian lands have been confiscated by Israel: Muslims 18.4% Christians 3.6% Both: 34.5%.
16) 54.7% of Bethlehem Christians said they had relatives whose land was confiscated by Israel. 41.7% of Muslims said the same .
17) 65.3% of people in Bethlehem said they have had family members or friends arrested for political reasons. (74.5% muslim, 59%Christian)
18) 41.5% of people in Bethlehem said they had either a member of their family or a friend killed by the Israeli army- 53.9% muslim, 32.9% Christian
19) 65.9% of Christians in Bethlehem think Israel treats Christian heritage with either brutality or indifference. (rising to 76% for those respondents over the age of 60)
20) 73.3% of Christians in Bethlehem believe PA treats Christian heritage with respect.
21) 86.1% of people in Bethlehem think churches should do more to help the city. 74.7% think the world knows little about situation.
22) 43.1% of people in Bethlehem see "Fear of the pro Israeli lobby" as the key factor behind the lack of action among international community while 14.2% think it is lack of understanding. 17.9% attribute it to general indifference .
23) 53.2% of people in Bethlehem believe that international pressure is key to resolving the situation while 18.9% think that the solution will come through a change in Israeli politics. Only 7.6% trust that help will come from Arab countries.
24) 75.7% of people in Bethlehem thought that most people in the world would like to visit Bethlehem while only 17.1% of Americans said they are likely to do so.
25) Americans saw the major interest in Bethlehem in the following order:
59.6% Visit the church of the Nativity
44.9% Walk the biblical route of the Holy family
36.8% experience the life of the local community
30.7% Visit Solomons pools
29 % Visit Desert monasteries
26.8 % Visit Shepherds Fields.
A majority - 60.4% - said they would visit Bethlehem for the historic nature of the city, against those interested in pilgrimage (30.8%).
26) A 69% majority of Americans thought Bethlehem was unsafe and saw safety as a key deterrent to visiting while 81.3% of people in Bethlehem believed that Bethlehem was either very safe or somewhat safe.
27) When asked about what factors would make them less supportive of the wall in Bethlehem Americans put the their reasons in the following order of importance:
1- the wall hurts the life of communities regardless of their faith or ethnic background 48.7%.
2- The wall separates some Bethlehem families from one another 40%.
3- The wall requires the seizure of privately owned land 38.7%
4- The wall separates Bethlehem and Jerusalem, two cities that have been historically interlinked and interdependent. 36.6%
5- The wall jeopardizes the sustainability of Bethlehem's Christian community. 30.5%
6- The wall has been condemned by local and International churches 25.8%
7- The wall has been condemned by the international court of justice. 25.2%
28) 74.4% of Americans believe it is necessary to protect the rights of Christian communities wherever they are. 71 % agree that preserving the Christian community in Bethlehem will protect and strengthen the Christian heritage of Bethlehem. 42.8% say believe that preserving the Christian heritage of Bethlehem will strengthen Christian communities worldwide.
29) 84.5% of people in Bethlehem said they were proud of being Bethlehemites and only 4.8% said they would have preferred to come from somewhere else.

At least 28 people have died in cluster bomb and land mine explosions in Lebanon since Israel's war with Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas ended in a U.N.-brokered cease-fire on Aug. 14.

The rights group Amnesty International and U.N. human rights experts have accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilian areas and indiscriminate use of cluster bombs during the July-August war. The groups allege Israel laid mines and dropped as many as 4 million cluster bombs on Lebanon.

Cluster bombs scatter scores of tiny explosives over an area the size of a football field and many of the small bombs failed to explode, in effect littering Lebanon with thousands of small land mines. U.N. ordnance clearing experts have said that up to 1 million cluster bombs failed to explode and continue to threaten civilians.

Israel says use of cluster bombs is permitted under international law.

I picked up Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid at San Francisco airport, and zipped through it in a day. It's a good, strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood. Carter lists the outrageous treatment meted out to the Palestinians, the Israeli occupation, the dispossession of Palestinian land by Israel, the brutality visited upon this denuded, subject population, and what he calls "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights".

Carter quotes an Israeli as saying he is "afraid that we are moving towards a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arabs subjects with few rights of citizenship...". A proposed but unacceptable modification of this choice, Carter adds, "is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory, with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences, and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them".

Needless to say, the American press and television largely ignored the appearance of this eminently sensible book - until the usual Israeli lobbyists began to scream abuse at poor old Jimmy Carter, albeit that he was the architect of the longest lasting peace treaty between Israel and an Arab neighbour - Egypt - secured with the famous 1978 Camp David accords. The New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print", ho! ho!) then felt free to tell its readers that Carter had stirred "furore among Jews" with his use of the word "apartheid". The ex-president replied by mildly (and rightly) pointing out that Israeli lobbyists had produced among US editorial boards a "reluctance to criticise the Israeli government".

Typical of the dirt thrown at Carter was the comment by Michael Kinsley in The New York Times (of course) that Carter "is comparing Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa". This was followed by a vicious statement from Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who said that the reason Carter gave for writing this book "is this shameless, shameful canard that the Jews control the debate in this country, especially when it comes to the media. What makes this serious is that he's not just another pundit, and he's not just another analyst. He is a former president of the United States".

But well, yes, that's the point, isn't it? This is no tract by a Harvard professor on the power of the lobby. It's an honourable, honest account by a friend of Israel as well as the Arabs who just happens to be a fine American ex-statesman. Which is why Carter's book is now a best-seller - and applause here, by the way, for the great American public that bought the book instead of believing Mr Foxman.

But in this context, why, I wonder, didn't The New York Times and the other gutless mainstream newspapers in the United States mention Israel's cosy relationship with that very racist apartheid regime in South Africa which Carter is not supposed to mention in his book? Didn't Israel have a wealthy diamond trade with sanctioned, racist South Africa? Didn't Israel have a fruitful and deep military relationship with that racist regime? Am I dreaming, looking-glass-like, when I recall that in April of 1976, Prime Minister John Vorster of South Africa - one of the architects of this vile Nazi-like system of apartheid - paid a state visit to Israel and was honoured with an official reception from Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, war hero Moshe Dayan and future Nobel prize-winner Yitzhak Rabin? This of course, certainly did not become part of the great American debate on Carter's book.

At Detroit airport, I picked up an even slimmer volume, the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report - which doesn't really study Iraq at all but offers a few bleak ways in which George Bush can run away from this disaster without too much blood on his shirt. After chatting to the Iraqis in the green zone of Baghdad - dream zone would be a more accurate title - there are a few worthy suggestions (already predictably rejected by the Israelis): a resumption of serious Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, an Israeli withdrawal from Golan, etc. But it's written in the same tired semantics of right-wing think tanks - the language, in fact, of the discredited Brookings Institution and of my old mate, the messianic New York Times columnist Tom Friedman - full of "porous" borders and admonitions that "time is running out".

The clue to all this nonsense, I discovered, comes at the back of the report where it lists the "experts" consulted by Messrs Baker, Hamilton and the rest. Many of them are pillars of the Brookings Institution and there is Thomas Freedman of The New York Times.

But for sheer folly, it was impossible to beat the post-Baker debate among the great and the good who dragged the United States into this catastrophe. General Peter Pace, the extremely odd chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said of the American war in Iraq that "we are not winning, but we are not losing". Bush's new defence secretary, Robert Gates, announced that he "agreed with General Pace that we are not winning, but we are not losing". Baker himself jumped into the same nonsense pool by asserting: "I don't think you can say we're losing. By the same token (sic), I'm not sure we're winning." At which point, Bush proclaimed this week that - yes - "we're not winning, we're not losing". Pity about the Iraqis.

I pondered this madness during a bout of severe turbulence at 37,000 feet over Colorado. And that's when it hit me, the whole final score in this unique round of the Iraq war between the United States of America and the forces of evil. It's a draw!

A smiling Olmert emerged from his official home to greet Abbas last night and the two shook hands and kissed each other on the cheek. Abbas was then introduced to Olmert's wife Aliza. The two leaders then went inside to take seats opposite each other at a long table, set for a meal with Israeli and Palestinian flags as table decorations.

These were the first official talks between the leaders since Olmert took power in January, although in June the pair did meet informally in Jordan, and will be the first summit between an Israeli and a Palestinian leader for nearly two years.

The last peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians collapsed in 2000 and appeared all but dead. Officials had worked for months to push for a meeting and much is at stake for both leaders, who desperately need a peace breakthrough to help with their serious political problems at home.

Abbas and his Fatah party are locked in a hostile and violent showdown with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which leads the Palestinian government. Last week, Abbas said he would seek early elections, a dramatic challenge to the 10-month-old Hamas government which immediately denounced it as a 'coup attempt'. Although backed by the international community, including Britain, his stance intensified factional fighting between Palestinian security forces and Hamas gunmen, especially in Gaza and increased fears of civil war.

Olmert has lost much of his popularity over his handling of July's war in Lebanon with Hizbollah guerrillas, which many in Israel believe was fought badly and ended inconclusively. The conflict discredited Olmert's political programme, including a promise to withdraw from much of the West Bank and settling Israel's borders by 2010.

Israel has repeatedly said it will not deal with the Hamas-led Palestinian government, elected in March, which refuses to recognise Israel, and Abbas has said that he has failed to change Hamas' position. But last night's talks will have focused on another key topic: the release of tax rebates and other monies Israel collected for the Palestinians but froze when Hamas was elected to power. The two leaders were also expected to have discussed the easing of Israeli travel restrictions in the West Bank and the fate of an Israel soldier, Gilad Shalit, captured in a cross-border raid by Hamas-allied militants in June.

'The issues on the table are the continuation of the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, what is happening with the Palestinian Authority's government and the issue of Gilad Shalit,' said Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Olmert.

Palestinian officials have said in the past that Abbas will not agree to any summit unless the outcome is agreed on ahead of time. It was not clear whether he got Israeli assurances on any of the issues, although a statement was expected to be released late last night.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said he hoped the meeting would help ease the suffering of the Palestinians and that Israel would release the frozen funds. However, Barhoum was sceptical. 'We have never gotten results from such meetings in the past,' he said.

In Gaza, meanwhile, factional fighting continued. In the town of Rafah, gunmen fired on the car of a senior Palestinian security official, wounding him, a bodyguard and a passer-by. The target, Hassan Jarbouh, deputy chief of the Rafah branch of the Preventive Security Service, was last night in a critical condition.

Assad has repeatedly signaled an interest in rapprochement since Israel's war in Lebanon with Syrian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas. The situation has been complicated by U.S. charges that Syria supports Iraq insurgents -- something Damascus denies -- as well as Syria's open sponsorship of Palestinian militants.

Past talks have run aground over the Golan, which Israel captured from Syria in a 1967 war. But Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said in a U.S. newspaper interview this month that new negotiations could be "without preconditions" on the Golan.

The messages elicited a mix of hope and suspicion in the Jewish state, stoked by the very government agencies charged with interpreting them.

Mossad chief Meir Dagan last week accused Assad of trying to distract from Western scrutiny on his regional alliances.

"Every time international pressure is applied, Assad puts on the same show of willingness to enter negotiations with us," a political source quoted Dagan as telling cabinet ministers. "But I still don't see Syria offering to resume talks with Israel."

Yet the chief analyst for Israel's Military Intelligence, Brigadier Yossi Baidatz, took a more upbeat tone.

"Syria is interested. Its overtures, predicated on the overall objective of recovering all of the Golan Heights, are genuine," Baidatz told Israeli lawmakers on Monday, according to an official account of the briefing.

POWER AND PERSONALITIES

The conflicting attitudes made headlines in Israel and drew exasperated critiques from some seasoned ex-spies.

"Maybe we should get the Mossad and Military Intelligence chiefs together in a room, so they can reach agreement?" said Danny Yatom, a retired army general and former Mossad director.

While Mossad and Military Intelligence differ in tradecraft -- the former favouring "human intelligence," or well-placed informants, while the latter has relied more on electronic eavesdropping -- a veteran of both agencies suggested the disagreement over Syria came down to views about the future.

"I suspect what we have here is a dispute between strong personalities on whether Assad is strong enough domestically to deliver a peace deal that will last," said retired intelligence analyst Matti Steinberg.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, seeking a new diplomatic plan since the Lebanon war and renewed fighting in Gaza put paid to his vision of unilaterally quitting some of the land where Palestinians want a state, appears for now to side with Dagan.

"If Syria agrees to stop the violence, to stop supporting Hamas, to stop supporting Hezbollah, to sever its terrible links to Iran -- then I have no doubt that it would be possible to begin a diplomatic process with it," Olmert said on Monday.

"I expect of President Assad that he not just make bombastic statements ... but that he also do something in the direction of the real diplomatic process that we would all like to see."

But it remains unclear how far Israel, which annexed the Golan in 1981 -- a move not recognised abroad -- would go to accommodate Syria's demand for the territory's ultimate return.

A poll published by the best-selling Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper over the weekend found that while 67 percent of Israelis think the Olmert government should respond to Syria's peace overtures, an almost equal number -- 66 percent -- would be opposed to giving up the Golan under a future peace accord.