内容摘要：Now, Britain and the European Union both say they are against a new Israeli offensive. A fortnight ago, the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, all allies of Israel who regard Hamas as a terrorist group, warned that the "intolerable" blockade put Palestinian civilians, including one million children, at "an acute risk of starvation, epidemic disease and death".

Now, Britain and the European Union both say they are against a new Israeli offensive. A fortnight ago, the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, all allies of Israel who regard Hamas as a terrorist group, warned that the "intolerable" blockade put Palestinian civilians, including one million children, at "an acute risk of starvation, epidemic disease and death".

The centrality of Trump to US foreign policy has also become apparent this week. This is more than just a simple truism. On show was the lack of involvement of other parts of the US government that traditionally help shape US decision-making overseas.Take the president's extraordinary decision to meet Syria's new president and former jihadist, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and lift sanctions on Syria. This showed the potential advantage of having foreign policy in one man's hands: it was a decisive and bold step. And it was clearly the president's personal decision, after heavy lobbying by both Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

It was seen by some diplomats as the quid pro quo for the diplomatic fawning and investment deals Trump received in Riyadh. Not only did the decision surprise many in the region but it also surprised many in the American government.Diplomats said the State Department was reluctant to lift sanctions, wanting to keep some leverage over the new Syrian government, fearful it was not doing enough to protect minorities and tackle foreign fighters.Diplomats say this pattern of impulsive decision-making without wider internal government discussion is common in the White House. The result, they say, is not always positive.

This is due, in part, to Trump's lack of consistency (or put simply, changing his mind).Take the decision this week to do a deal with China to cut tariffs on trade with the US. A few weeks ago Trump imposed 145% tariffs on Beijing, with blood thirsty warnings against retaliation. The Chinese retaliated, the markets plunged, American businesses warned of dire consequences.

So in Geneva, US officials climbed down and most tariffs against China were cut to 30%, supposedly in return for some increased US access to Chinese markets. This followed a now-familiar pattern: issue maximalist demands, threaten worse, negotiate, climb down and declare victory.

The problem is that this "art of a deal" strategy might work on easily reversible decisions such as tariffs. It is harder to apply to longer term diplomatic conundrums such as war.Match of the Day was reduced to a 20-minute edition minus its host, pundits and commentary - and the story made headline news for several days, with politicians and media commentators all weighing in on the issue.

Mr Davie subsequentlyfor the disruption, calling it a "difficult day" for the corporation.

Lineker was reinstated nine days later.The presenter