In wanting Mumsnet to help Judi Dench and Joanna Lumley

I don’t know what you want exactly @Binus . I suspect that any middle ground would firstly require a discussion / meeting and Israel will not facilitate (as @GiantBranch has patiently and repeatedly explained).

And we're back to the fact that activism can actually have an impact on the people it purports to help that is in fact opposite than the desired one - i.e. is bad for them.

This isn't the primary school playground. Life isn't as easy as goodies and baddies and shouldn't be measured in meaningless soundbites.

Allowing in agencies that are supporting Hamas rather than providing aid is not going to 'ensure maternity aid is accessible' in Gaza. It's going to at best provide the illusion that agencies are helping women and children when in fact they're not. We need proper, neutral, verifiable sources of information on this - the people most likely to have access to that is Government ministers.

Also, the UK government has ALREADY made a statement that they want to ensure maternity care is accessible and ALSO is continuing to apply pressure to ensure this happens. So I don't really understand what more can be reasonably expected of the UK government or anyone else in the UK?

I'm beginning to think it's just a meaningless publicity stunt.

Meanwhile total silence from these celebs on ensuring UK women have access to decent maternity care, an existing MN campaign grown out of MNetters real concerns and experience. 61% of women couldn't access food when they needed it on postnatal wards in the uk. It's not a minor problem. Our survey: what women told us about care on postnatal wards | Mumsnet

You'd think there'd be some quid pro quo if they want to tell the normal mummies what to think and do.

It sounds like you've read it, can you link anything where the NGOs concerned have talked about how they plan to balance the security risks? I've seen the releases where they've said they don't think they should've been asked in the first place and why they don't want to do it, but not what their proposed alternatives are and how they expect they'd work.

There’s an exhaustive thread on the whys and wherefores of the decision on another board @Binus

Remembering that 579 humanitarian workers have been killed there in 2 years.

So you want to ask Mumsnet to support it as a collective without the support of the Mumsnet as a collective?

Yes, I can see that you're supporting them without expecting any information about how they expect to manage the security issues in a way that doesn't cause any further problems for Gazan civilians. That's clear.

Because many people who don't flippantly comment about dead babies do find it unreasonable to not support protections of women and children in these circumstances. You're not one of them but you seem to be policing OP very unfairly. If you have a problem with the thread or it's title report it to MN.

Never told you where you can post simply pointed out there was a thread running on this already on the fwr board where you're all happy with people not RTFT and hounding posters by repeating the same point or question already asked by previous posters something that's considered quite annoying and not in the interests of a proper discussion else where.

By definition it's absolutely not coercive control and that's a really inappropriate use of the term. Coercive control is something women are already struggling to have properly recognised and understood - using it to describe something you dislike doesn't help that. Again, many users on FWR are more than happy with public calls for people to "speak up" without considering it coercive control or bullying when it suits them and are simply derailing OPs thread with their double standards. Do you want to share your own stance on the issue or are you just insisting on speaking on Justine's behalf about why she shouldn't have to share a view when she's happily been political before?

And I have repeatedly pointed out that they have not told the public anything about how they plan to manage the obvious security risks (including the impact on Gazan civilians) if the Israelis accede to their requests. The only way you can refute this point is if you know of something they've released that actually addresses it.

But you chose to share it, uncritically and as a question that people would be unreasonable if they didn't support it/ you.

Again though, none of these NGOs need a meeting to explain to the public whose support they seek how they'd balance the security issues. Even if we assume there are some things the Israelis aren't making public, there's still enough in the public domain for it to be clear that the risk exists. Unless the NGOs simply want to pretend it doesn't, which I hope isn't the case, they must have some idea.

Oh yes, this 💯 times!
But no, they'll just keep shouting "dead babies!" and ignore the rest.

Maybe that's because no one is answering our questions about why you're defending the tactics of the open letter. And it can't just be because the means justify the ends because that never has any consequences does it...

So the UK Foreign Minister (a mother no less!) has already condemned Israel's policy on NGOs. What more pressure or can Justine/Mumsnet create?

And agree with Binus - how about putting forward some constraints around the data sharing that would BOTH ensure they can demonstrate they are not harbouring Hamas terrorists but ALSO address concerns about data usage and data protection.

It seems they just won't meet Israel halfway and are digging their heels in and saying a flat 'no'. Which doesn't seem to be much of a focus on helping Palestinians. Israel's concerns seem legitimate to me and ALSO in the best interests of Palestinians. If aid agencies funnel aid to Hamas rather than civilians that doesn't help the civilians does it?

NGOs said the demands, set to take effect in the new year, would breach EU data protection laws and put their staff at risk

I mean the GDPR is routinely breached on a daily basis by companies and usually fuck all happens. I don't think that's a strong argument for not helping Gazan women and babies is it?

Risk to their staff, fine, but are we supposed to uncritically accept their point of view on this when Israel seems to have some evidence that Hamas are hiding behind some aid agencies and carry out acts of terror using these agencies. What does 'risk' to their staff mean? Which staff? Can't they just comply with the request for the others and alter their operations in order to be more transparent? Is there no middle ground here? Other charities appear to have complied?

From my reading around this I think there does appear to be a problem with some charities that in this conflict in particular they have strayed quite far from their charitable aid aims into at best political activism.

They did, and their desire for more clarity on data sharing from the Israeli government seems reasonable to me.

What they have not done, or it wasn't in the press communiques anyway, is addressed the security concerns and problems with Hamas involvement in aid groups, and how they think these could be managed without providing the information asked for and in a manner that doesn't cause further problems for Gazan civilians.