Dubai ruler in vast charity gift,The ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, says he is giving $10bn (£5bn) to set up an educational foundation in the Middle East.
The money is meant to improve the standard of education and research in the region, and aims to stimulate job creation, Sheikh Mohammed said.

It is thought to be one of the largest charitable donations in history.

The announcement was made to widespread applause at the World Economic Forum, which is being held in Jordan.

Sheikh Mohammed, known as a successful racehorse owner as well as ruler of Dubai, said his personal initiative was aimed at creating what he called "a knowledge-based society" in the Middle East.


There is a wide knowledge gap between us and the developed world in the West and in Asia
Sheikh Mohammed
At the moment, he explained, there was high illiteracy in the region - where more than 40% of Arab women cannot read or write.

The whole Arab world publishes fewer books than the country of Turkey.

And spending on scientific research is only a tiny fraction of that in developed countries.

"There is a wide knowledge gap between us and the developed world in the West and in Asia. Our only choice is to bridge this gap as quickly as possible, because our age is defined by knowledge," the sheikh said.

While there may be less learning in the region, there is high unemployment, and it is likely to get higher with a rapidly growing population.


"Our region needs at this moment 15 million job opportunities, and our Arab world will need in the next 20 years between 74 to 85 million job opportunities," the sheikh told the conference.

"We need to develop the infrastructure so we can create jobs."

Sheikh Mohammed hopes to increase education and research, and also to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship throughout the region.

"In order to realise these objectives, I have decided to establish the Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum Foundation to focus on human development, and have I decided to endow a fund of $10bn to finance its projects," he said.

As ruler of Dubai, he can share the success of his principality, which is known the world over as the economic success story of the Middle East.

Hedging the bets , Pondering his options, Bush is sticking with Israel despite the consequences, the Winograd Committee issued its report on the Olmert-Bush war on Lebanon, a war that left more than 1,000 Lebanese killed, destroyed dozens of villages, and drove thousands from their homes. This was also the war in which Lebanese resistance changed the rules of the game, inflicting defeat on the once- thought invincible Israeli army, and killing 163 Israelis. For the first time in its history, Israel saw thousands of its inhabitants fleeing from the north to the central and southern parts of the country. Many left Israel for the entire duration of the war. Hundreds of missiles fell deep inside the country, a precedent in the history of Arab- Israeli wars.

The Winograd report didn't mince its words. It was accurate, daring, blunt and clear. This displeased some in Israel, one of whom denounced the report as being "boring, demagogic, naïve, and lacking in specific substance." The Israelis say that the report's aim is to reduce the possibility of mistakes being repeated. But the report goes beyond that. It exposes the social fragility, spiritual vacuum, and political haplessness of Israel.

The report called Olmert "a failed leader, a man lacking in experience, reckless and thoughtless". His Kadima Party appeared about to disintegrate, with other parties contemplating a takeover. In many parts of Israel, criticism of Olmert, Peretz and Halutz was mounting. And Olmert was fighting for dear life. He was quoted as saying that, "those who are conspiring against me, I will cut them into pieces, one by one. I will reorganise Kadima once this is over. I am an old fox, with 33 years in politics. I have been denounced before. I have been called a spent force. But I haven't come this far for nothing. I am no stranger to bickering. Those who attack me will regret it."

For the time being at least, Olmert seems to have weathered the storm. His opponents, inside and outside Kadima, are changing their tone. One reason for this is the solid support he got from the White House. President Bush supported the war in Lebanon. Bush bought time for Israel during the war, because he wanted Israel to crush the Lebanese resistance. Bush had hoped that an Israeli victory would pave the way for a "new Middle East". After the Winograd report, the US president once again stood by Olmert, for obvious reasons.

Any criticism of Olmert is implicitly a denouncement of the White House. The US is fighting simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is facing defeat on both fronts. So the US has grown accustomed to lying. It can no longer distinguish freedom from oppression, torture from human rights, or victory from defeat. Interestingly, the US still views Israel as the "only democracy" in the Middle East.

The Winograd report is being watered down by those who cannot tell the difference between idiocy and level-headedness. The most important thing for such people is to win, not to spare blood. When the Winograd report was released, one writer said, "a failed war took place here last summer, a war that was the worst in Israel's history. We have experienced horrors and failure. The army was crippled on the front, and the home front was a mess." But the mood is changing now. Some people are arguing that the war was a great victory, that the aggression in Lebanon deflected greater evils, and that Israel is safer with Hizbullah pushed north of the Litani River.

The defeat is once again being portrayed as a great act of self-defence. The reason is simple. The Americans are going to send Israel F-22 planes. Such planes, one analyst said, "can fly in the sky without being detected. They can fly long distances, even reach Iran or Iraq and come back. Some can carry nuclear arms."

The US is helping Olmert to spite the Arabs and Iran. And it knows that Israel's army is the one army it can depend on in the Middle East. Bush is said to be considering talks with Syria and Iran. But, for the time being, he is hedging his bets.

Brief encounters at Sharm el-Sheikh,So those landmark US-Iranian talks in full. Condoleezza Rice asks: "How are you foreign minister?" and Manouchehr Mottaki replies: "Fine, thank you."
This after some prompting from others over the lunch table for the US secretary of state and the Iranian foreign minister to break the ice.

Hardly the kind of exchanges that lead to world peace.

The two were due to sit down opposite each other at dinner later that day - were it not for the red dress worn by a female Russian violinist entertaining the foreign dignitaries.

Mr Mottaki seemed to think her attire was inappropriate and so - we are told - left early.


Pleasantly surprised

So why the missed opportunity? Well, there was no doubting that the Americans had wanted to talk.

This international conference on Iraq's future had given Ms Rice the ideal opportunity to do that - casting aside years of the US policy of isolation in the process.

Iraq wanted to see the US talk to its neighbour. So did other neighbouring Arab states to relieve the growing tensions.

But in the end it seemed that Iran had taken the decision to avoid the contact.

Who in Tehran had made that decision? It is hard to say.

There have been some suggestions that Mr Mottaki was not the right interlocutor.

Iranian sentiments towards the US, though, have not been helped by the detention of five Iranian "diplomats" in Iraq.

The US was prepared to talk - but only on its terms and focused on Iraq.

By concentrating on the phantom talks with Iran, there is, however, a danger of ignoring a major development in relations between Washington and Damascus.

Condoleezza Rice had her first face-to-face talks with Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Muallem.

Given that the US has labelled Syria a state sponsor of terror, this in itself was significant.

The tone of their discussions did not appear to be hostile either.

"I didn't lecture him and he didn't lecture me," Ms Rice told reporters.

She raised US concerns about the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq.

But US military commanders note that in the past month there has been a slight improvement on that front.

US officials were also pleasantly surprised by the speech given by Mr Muallem at the conference.

While he talked in vague terms of the need for the US to leave Iraq, there was no demand for a timetable for withdrawal or for an end to the "occupation".

As one senior US official told me, that puts Syria slightly to the right of the Democratic Party.


Limited success

A number of European countries have long believed that you can "flip" or "peel" Syria away from Iran.

US officials may still not be convinced but the meeting may have given them reason to pause and think again.

IRAQ CONFERENCE KEY POINTS
Attended by Iraq's neighbours, permanent members of Security Council, EU and G8
International compact signed, aimed at achieving political and economic stability in five years
Iraq won pledges of US $30bn debt relief
US secretary of state talks with Syrian foreign minister
US and Iranian officials met at ambassador level

However, back to Washington and Tehran. They seem to be as far apart as ever.

The atmosphere at Sharm el-Sheikh was not helped by the Iranian foreign minister's speech at the conference.

He said that the US "occupation" of Iraq was the root cause of the violence there.

The flurry of excitement when it emerged that senior US officials had met their Iranian counterparts on the margins does not seem to amount to much either.

That contact lasted all of three minutes as they were walking past each other.

And in the final analysis this conference was much more important to the US than simply sitting down with Iran.

This was always about winning international support for Iraq.

And on that front, the administration of George W Bush seems to have had some limited and rare success.

Cdn. peacekeeper among nine dead in Sinai crash,Cpl. Benoit Chevalier,Pieces of metal and a tyre, appearing to be wreckage, lie at the scene of the plane crash which killed nine foreign peacekeepers near the village of El-Thamad in the Sinai region of Egypt Sunday, May 6, 2007.

Egyptian firemen put out remaining fires on a truck believed to have clipped the wings of a plane trying to make an emergency landing on the highway, which then crashed nearby killing nine foreign peacekeepers near the village of El-Thamad in the Sinai region of Egypt Sunday, A Canadian is among nine foreign peacekeepers killed Sunday when their aircraft crashed in a remote, rugged corner of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.

The Canadian has been identified as Cpl. Benoit Chevalier, 25, from 3 Wing Bagotville in Quebec.
His hometown is Macamic, Que., about 650 kilometres northwest of Montreal, reports a Saguenay, Que. newspaper.

Canada's Department of National Defence says Chevalier was an air traffic controller assigned to Task Force El Gorah (TFEG).

"He was one of a team of six air traffic controllers deployed to provide flight following services for the MFO" -- the Multinational Forces and Observers -- said the release.
"He was on board to familiarize himself with the Twin Otter aircraft operations and to liaise with air traffic controllers at St. Catherine's airport in Sinai, Egypt."

The crash killed Chevalier and eight of the 15-member French peacekeeping contingent, and destroyed the mission's sole fixed-wing aircraft, said MFO spokesperson Normand St. Pierre.
A "higher than normal" load of passengers and crew were aboard the aircraft at the time of the crash during a training mission, St. Pierre said.

The plane, a Canadian-built DeHavilland DHC-6 Twin Otter, went down in the middle of the Sinai Peninsula near the village of el-Thamad, about 80 kilometres southeast of a town called Nakhl.
The MFO says the plane was trying to make an emergency landing on a highway when it clipped a truck and crashed nearby.

"Witnesses say they saw the plane flying quite low. They saw smoke, they saw flames," said CTV's Middle East Bureau Chief Janis Mackey Frayer.
"A wing of the plane actually hit the top of a truck on the highway, suggesting that the plane possibly had mechanical problems and was trying to make an emergency landing on that highway."

The weather was sunny and clear when the plane took off at 7:46 a.m. local time from El Gorah base -- the northern headquarters of the peacekeeping mission -- on its way to St. Catherine's airport in the southern Sinai Peninsula.

The airport lost radio contact with the plane at about 9:15 a.m., then received a distress signal indicating possible mechanical failure, before the plane crashed into a mountain, Capt. Ihab Moheildin, the air control officer at Cairo airport.
Ahmad Attallah, a truck driver who was in the area told AP he saw the plane on its way down.
"I looked up and saw a small plane with a trail of flame and smoke flying at a low altitude and then it disappeared and I heard an explosion," he said.
Twenty-eight Canadian Forces personnel are part of the multi-national force -- an independent international organization created by Egypt and Israel to monitor their border in the Sinai after a 1979 peace deal.

The MFO is also comprised of soldiers from the U.S., France, Australia, Columbia, Fiji, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand, Uruguay, and Norway.

Chevalier played 'key role'
Colonel Peter Abbott, Commander of Task Force El Gorah, said Chevalier was a "highly appreciated and skilled member" of the Canadian team assigned to the MFO.
"He was playing a key role in maintaining the cohesiveness of the Canadian contingent and his comrades regarded him as an extremely personable, thoughtful and professional airman."
Col. Pierre Ruel, 3 Wing Bagotville commanding officer, told a news conference Sunday that Chevalier joined the Canadian Forces five years ago, transferring to his unit in July 2003.

He said Chevalier's body would be brought to Ottawa then Macamic, but couldn't confirm a date.
The Governor General and Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered their condolences to the families, friends, and colleagues of Chevalier, as well as to those of the eight French military personnel.

Michaelle Jean said she is deeply saddened by the news of the terrible accident.
"Corporal Chevalier served our country with distinction and honour," Harper said in a statement.
In France, President Jacques Chirac expressed similar sentiments about his country's dead personnel.

Iran: 'We are Ready to Talk' ,Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki speaks during a press conference at the international conference on Iraq, 04 May 2007 in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.,Iran's top diplomat, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, has told TIME in an exclusive interview that his country wants talks with U.S. officials. He also indicated that recently revived talks on the nuclear issue with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana should continue "until we arrive at a multi-faceted formula" that both recognizes Iran's nuclear rights and satisfies international concerns that Iran could divert its uranium-enrichment program to build nuclear weapons.

Speaking after the conclusion of a two-day conference on Iraq's future held in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheikh, Mottaki explained that he did not meet Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice one-on-one during the conference, because "ministers of foreign affairs don't just meet accidentally." Rice told reporters that "the opportunity simply didn't arise...I would have taken that opportunity."
Besides facing each other across the conference table, Rice and Mottaki exchanged pleasantries at a lunch. But Mottaki walked out of a dinner at which the Egyptian hosts had placed him within easy conversation range of Rice — purportedly because he objected to a revealing red dress worn by a woman violinist providing background music for the occasion. Rice had reportedly planned to approach Mottaki at the dinner to demand that Iran stop providing Shi'ite militias in Iraq with arms to attack U.S. forces there.
In the TIME interview, however, Mottaki said that Iran is "ready to talk" to the U.S., but sees no sign that the U.S. is prepared to end a 28-year-old freeze in relations dating back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran. Before such talks could occur, he says, Washington would have to show political will to enter into discussions with Iran, and take unspecified steps to show its seriousness.
The fact that Mottaki and Rice showed up at the same conference was, in itself, a small breakthrough. But their failure to hold a tete-a-tete on the sidelines disappointed Iraqi and other officials at the conference, who believe that U.S.-Iranian understanding may be crucial to ending the conflict in Iraq, as well as to resolving other disputes concerning Lebanon and the Palestinians. Mottaki spoke to TIME after the conference had ended.
TIME: Our two countries have a lot to talk about, but we are not talking very much.
Mottaki: We are ready to talk, but we have to have some substance and plans.
TIME: Why didn't you meet with Secretary Rice here in Sharm el Sheikh?
Mottaki: There was no advance planning for a meeting. That's why it didn't take place. Ministers of foreign affairs don't just meet accidentally. You need to have certain preparations in advance. First of all, there should be a political will for the meeting. They should have an agenda of what they are going to talk about. We don't want to have this conversation for the sake of a conversation. We are not looking for a theatrical show.

TIME: Does Iran have the political will to have a dialogue with the United States? Or is it the United States that does not have the political will?
Mottaki: The Islamic Republic of Iran has always, has consistently had the political will to deal and examine the issues between the two sides. But we have to receive a signal from the other side as well. Also, we have to see some steps to assure the seriousness of the other side.
TIME: You are telling me that you have the political will to start talks with the United States?
Mottaki: There is the political will on our side to review and to discuss the problems that have been created by the United States over the many years in Iran. And also the problems that have been created by the United States in the region over the past years. If there is a willingness on the other side, we are prepared to do that.

TIME: What did you [Mottaki and Rice] speak to each other about at the lunch?
Mottaki: There was nothing special, just pleasantries. This is not really very important.
TIME: Why doesn't Iran take up Rice's offer, which she repeated today, that if Iran suspends its uranium enrichment activities, that the United States is ready to discuss all the topics Iran and America would like to talk about?

Mottaki: The government really doesn't have any right to stop something that is totally legal.
TIME: You did before; you made a suspension before [in 2003, during talks with the European Union].
Mottaki: At that time, we tried to build confidence and we did that. [For] more than two years, we suspended our activities. But we did not see serious will on the other side to recognize our rights. That's why we started to move ourselves in order to secure our rights. Under the supervision of the IAEA, with the cameras installed, and continuous inspections by the inspectors. And we have entered a new phase of industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel. This has been a right.

According to the charter of the United Nations, the Security Council has no right to impose on nations things that are against their inalienable rights. So this precondition of Ms. Rice is wrong from the very beginning. Americans and the British should also realize that they do not have a better position over the others. They should also listen to the others as well.
TIME: How do you describe any progress made in the recent talks between Dr. Ali Larijani [head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and its chief nuclear negotiator] and [European Union foreign policy chief] Javier Solana?

Mottaki: Good ideas were raised between Larijani and Solana. We found Solana to be a little bit more serious. We have received signals and indications from the 5+1 [the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany] that Mr. Solana has greater authority this time than before. The two sides agreed to continue the negotiations. We believe that 5+1 should encourage Solana to continue the negotiations until we arrive at a multi-faceted formula. On their side, they want their concerns to be alleviated. They want to receive the necessary assurances for non-diversion. On our side, we want our rights. Nothing else.

TIME: Have you given a new proposal for those assurances?
Mottaki: The negotiations are continuing to arrive at such a formula.
TIME: What is Iran's position on national reconciliation to better draw the Sunni Muslim population into the governing process in Iraq?
Mottaki: The constitution of Iraq has provisions on solving problems between ethnic communities, including the integration of the militias into the regular army of Iraq. The Iraqi government is doing that, and we support that.

TIME: What is your response to American allegations that Iran is providing military support to Shi'ite militia groups that are killing American troops and Iraqi civilians?
Mottaki: These are really baseless allegations. We have given answers to these allegations. The real question is about the U.S. policy in Iraq. I think it is much better that the United States stop pointing fingers at others.

TIME: Why do you call it an "occupation"? The Iraqi government invited the United States and the multinational forces to be in Iraq.
Mottaki: The initial entry of these coalition forces to Iraq was without the permission of the United Nations. Then later on they imposed what they wanted on the government. We don't want this to become something normal.