Demonstration against Israeli bombing of Gaza in London on Saturday.

[SmilleysPeople]

If anyone is intersted.

It's at 12.30pm along Embankment, nearest tubes Embankment and Charing Cross.

It's being organised by Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coaltion and numerous other groups.

I will bump this sporadically, but if anyone else would like to help promote this, plaese bump too.

I will be there.

Slim22 - I didn't see anything in that link to substantiate your claim.

My impresssion at the time was that Arafat was offered 96% of the West Bank and Gaza and refused.

In any negotiation situation it is normal for both sides to have an ideal and a fallback position - the best outcome and the least that they can realistically accept. It is unreasonable for eihter side to insist on the best outcome.

Israel has as the fallback position preservation of its security. Anything less would be suicidal. Israel has no desire to retain hold of Gaza and the West Bank as can be shown by the withdrawal from Gaza and the dismantling of the settlements ( which was painful within israrel but determindly carried out by the IDF)but must ensure its borders and be ever mindful that its neighbours are hostile and have in mind as their best outcome its total destruction.

I hope that explains why the Israelis are very conscious of security issues in any negotiations whereas other western nations may find this exaggerated or incomprehensible.

An alternative perspective on the reason for the failure of Camp David and the perceived refusal of the Palestinians to accede to the accord is given by Henry Kissinger in, amongst other sources, "Does America need a foreign policy for the 21st century?". Always something of a pragmatist (to say the least), the Camp David summit was destined to fail from the outset as Clinton's intention was to secure a permanent binding agreement as his legacy. This meant that whatever concessions (and to be fair, they were generous concessions) the Palestinians received would be the final agreement in perpetuity - Arafat would never have been able to sell a permanent agreement on the terms proposed to his own people and was therefore unable to sign up to the agreement. This had the benefit, from Clinton's perspective, of being able to point the finger of blame very clearly at Arafat as being intransigent and refusing to compromise even though his own advisers had already told him that the Palestinians would be unable to sign up to an agreement on these terms.

See you are doing it again.
I hear you are a lawyer? The first imperative is to observe listen. The second is to categorize the situation within the limits of the Law.
You only see Israel rationale. This is a NEGOTIATION. That's 2 parties discussing.
It can't be all about Israel.

I suggest you go to the library and read some books. Maybe switch to some serious news source like the economist.

Had enough of trying to discuss this with you. You just cry foul and run. You have no serious understanding of the facts and can not say anything constructive.

What terms do you think he would have been able to sell ?

Yes, indeed. Thank you c'est la vie.

I'm not sure it's quite so simple lisalisa, as to say "what terms do you think he would have been able to sell?" not least since most analysts on the region very accurately note that what is saleable to one side is almost certainly unacceptable to the other. Jerusalem itself is a clear example of this.

A mechanism which allows both sides to engage in dialogue and provides a broad route forwards (in terms of milestones and paramters) seems to me, and others, to be the only way forward in an incredibly difficult situation. Of course, such a mechanism needs to be treated with absolute respect by both sides which hasn't quite been the case historically where similar suggestion have been put forward.

Slim, Lisa - it is possible to disagree fiercely and not descend into trying to belittle the person you are debating with. If you are actually trying to convince someone of the veracity of your position, you;'re not going to do that my patronising them and asking them to read things slowly. You are only going to antagonise them and bloster your own ego. Neither of you is wrong or right. You'd both be better off agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.

Slim - re your question - not too personal at all.
"Can I ask you what made you evolve in this direction?"

I?ve just discovered the damage that can come about by following a political philosophy blindly, even if you find yourself drawn to it.

But Rev, again, you have to see the Hama's strategy in this. It works to their favour to have the blockade, malutrition.

oh yes the blockade. So now that's the work of Hamas too is it? not Israel then.

Surely the main reason for Israel's blockade for the last 18 months was to try to force Hamas from power? Cutting food, water , medicine and electricity to make the place virtually ungovernable?

Many argue that Israel cannot be expected to put up with having rockets launched at it daily. "How would the UK like it if France fired regular rockets over the Channel at Kent?"

• Yet the Palestinians are somehow expected to put up with living with poverty and malnutrition without complaint because they have been blockaded by their neighbour. "How would the French like it if every import to their land was controlled - and often completely blockaded - by the British?" Would no-one expect retaliation in such a scenario. Notwithstanding the assination rairds carried out by the IDF to rid Gaza of Hamas leaders (who it deems to be terrorists.)

I am going to take a chance and join this thread. I admit to being ignorant. I used to be a political animal. I grew up in the 80s and marched against aparthied, racism etc etc.

I have withdrawn pretty much from the RL over the last 5 years due to the illness and then death of my DD. I mention this because I dont want anyone to think I am an airhead. I am just beginning to stick my head above the sheets and take notice of what is happening in the RL.

Things rarely affect me now (due I think to the above) but I find myself utterly distressed at what is happening in Gaza. I do not understand enough of the politics or history. I know that the land is question is of vital importance to both sides and I can understand why on both counts.

But all I can see now is that innocent civilians are being slaughtered. Children are being blown to pieces and our counterparts - ordinary mothers are living in hell.

I am not so green to think that there is not a huge amount of propaganda going on on both sides, but given all that, surely this bombardment is wrong?

Please do not flame me, I realise I may come across as uninformed but I am not wet or soppy. I do wish to understand more.

I was attracted to this thread because I thought that I may be able to attend the protest and I have not felt that urge since my DD was diagnosed over 4 years ago.

I am not anti Jewish or anti muslim in any sense. Like the vast majority of human beings I am anti killing of innocents.

Good post by ScarletLilyBug. Hamas's election did not occur in a vacuum. Maybe it suits Israeli tactics to have an extremist government in Gaza?

Thanks Rev, I think that is the problem - it seems to be one or the other whats the word? Polorised? It makes it v. hard to get a handle on the situation.

I am finding it hard to understand the reasonings behind the bombardment (not mumsnetter's - leader's). I realise that because of attacks on Jewish soldiers and civilians, they would feel the need for retaliation. But this seems so, I dont know, apocoliptical (pls dont too much at my spelling and grammer!).

It must feel like the world is coming to an end in Gaza.