17/11/2012 Dateline London

meningitis B each year and one in 10 of them die.

Welcome to Dateline London. The Middle East conflict leads to more

deaths. How far have both sides still to come to terms with the

politics of the Middle East? My Guest Sidot of Marc Roche, Ashis

Ray of the Times of India, Nesrine Malik, the Sudanese writer and

Michael White. The question of who started it energises bedside of the

Middle East conflict. With civilians being killed on both

sides and Israelis and Palestinians apparently locked inside another

cycle of violence the big question is can anything be done to bring

the conflict to an end? With huge changes taking place on Israel's

borders, in Egypt and Syria for example, what difference does it

make? On the timing of this, why now? It is obvious. There is an

election coming up in January. This is not an unusual thing to see an

incumbent Israeli government launching attacks on Gaza or

Palestinians in general to strengthen their position. It is

not a cynical today. All mainstream, trade says there's that the

elections are driving this attack. -- all mainstream commentary says.

This is not a new thing. We have seen it happen over the past 60

years in Israel. The Israeli government position is that it is a

security matter and a question of rockets being fired and we had to

act and we always reserve the right to act. That is their position.

They obviously have to say that. But over the past two days, there

have been verified reports that there was a peace agreement, a

draft peace agreement, that was very close to being signed with the

Hamas leader who was assassinated. A member of the Israeli negotiating

party that secured the release of the Israeli prisoner that was held

by Hamas few years ago was a go- between and confirmed that they

morning he was assassinated there was a draft peace agreement being

discussed. Exposes the Israeli government's position as completely

false. Whatever the result this and people can go back years, -- the

roots. Is there any way of getting out of it? The mobilisation of

troops, some suggest there will be a blockade of Gaza, maybe even on

the side of Sinai which could produce complete with Egypt.

once Europe is really in the back seat of this because the power is

with America and President Obama being re-elected, not having to

preserve Jewish votes... We have been obsessed at the moment with

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Libya as well. We forgot that at the core of

the problem is the Palestinian problem. Since Bush senior and

James Baker were the only ones who really tried to have moved the

system, he has the solution in his hands. To go back to Nesrine

Malik's., nothing politically is likely to happen until we know the

new leadership of Israel. It does not matter. Because of the help the

US is giving to Egypt and Israel, they are the only ones who can

force, especially if Binjamin Netanyahu... He has quite a lot of

power to force the Israelis and the Egyptians to put pressure on Hamas.

Looking on it another way, Michael White, the question of Iran is the

big foreign policy question for the United States. The really big

problem for Obama is what to do about Iran and had to keep Israel

on side. A it is a basic rule of Orphir. You do not open their war

on two friends when you do not have to -- a basic rule of warfare.

Personally, I do not believe that they will make a strike on around.

Nesrine Malik is right about the election being a driving force. It

has a destructive design of democracy, a proportional system

allows minor parties to dictate in Israel. Binjamin Netanyahu back to

the wrong side. Lleyton the, it was both improper and foolish because

Mitt Romney was always going to lose -- blatantly. Eisenhower was

the last one to do it and he was an even more serious general than now.

Hamas has the advantage it things because of the Arab Spring. It is

showing muscle. You cannot deny the Israelis the fact that a lot of

rockets have gone over from Gaza and maybe they were keeping a hot

heads in control and maybe he was punished. They do take a lot of

rockets and we must not forget it. That is certainly true. But as you

said, the political geometry of the Middle East is also important. From

the Israeli perspective, things perhaps can only get worse.

Absolutely. The potential of this conflict spreading out beyond the

immediate region of Israel and Palestine is greater than what it

was even a year ago. That is because of the new ground realities.

There is one situation which has I think coming back to any time and

time again. The United States exercised a certain restraint on a

country like Egypt. Today you have a democratically elected government

in Egypt. That same restraint may not be there. There is also the

people's view in Egypt which may come into play. There is also,

maybe not so strong a link, but a historical link between Hamas and

the Muslim Brotherhood. What happens in terms of this spillover

is I think a very disturbing prospect. That is true but it is

also true that there has been no restraint on Israeli settlements

being built on the West Bank according to the Palestinian people.

It is hardly surprising, they would say, that the rockets are being

fired. Rockets are being fired by both sides. The difference is this.

It is an uneven battle. You have got Rochus on one side which a

short range -- you have got rockets. They are not really ones which

would go deeper or be more effective. The kind of Rochus

Israel is able to produce and launched... -- the kind of rockets.

But the political realities have changed. Hamas possibly has more

allies than it did a year ago. That makes a difference. I disagree with

this. The past few days, people have been saying that the political

terrain has changed, there are new democratic governments in the

Middle East that are going to represent the will of the people. I

think it is actually far less promising. These governments are

still quite constrained by their desires, especially the Muslim

Brotherhood, their desire to appear responsible and mature politicians

to the west. They need to act in a restrained fashion. Egypt in

particular has a peace treaty with Israel that it cannot just rip up.

Ultimately, these are not countries that can go to war with Israel.

Why? It is a zero sum game. They would be annihilated. What has

happened over the past couple of days is a lot of moral support and

a lot of grandstanding and soundbites and images of the

Egyptian Prime Minister carrying children into the hospital's in

Gaza. But in terms of actual physical tangible help, Arab

governments can do very little. There is another dimension which is

important. It is a proxy war between Israel and Iran. Iran is a

massively putting arms into Gaza and the Israelis are afraid that

some of the arms could reach the urban centres. It is very important.

You cannot deny there are victims on both sides. The Israelis have

also a right to defend themselves. Very briefly, can you just do a

brief numbers. Over the past 11 months, before the Israelis began

their attacks on Gaza a few days ago with the assassination, there

were 76 deaths in Gaza and about 200 injuries and zero deaths in

Israel. The first deaths happened after the assassination. That is

irrelevant. You are putting deaths on one side... That is

regrettable... It is entirely relevant. There is a disparity.

What does it mean for the wider conflict? It means that Israel is

not being provoked into attacking Gaza. There is a this

proportionality of power and an over-reaction. I feel sorry and

cross with both sides. Hamas has broken with the Assad regime in

Syria. This has all taken the heat off the Assad regime. The other

question to which I do not know the answer is that Turkey is in play

with a moderate Islamist government and a turkey is a serious military

force by any one's test. I do not know what it means but I mention it.

I do believe that as a national government, the Israeli government

has an international responsibility. The responsibility has to be

exercised. More than what Hamas has. I am not an apologist for Hamas but

one gets the impression that Binyamin Netanyahu has been itching

for i if fight for quite some time. He was restrained on the round. He

did not get the US President he wanted. Now this is an opportunity

before the general elections... He was restrained on Iran.

By-elections usually result and a bit of a slap for the government of

the day. This week's results might not be entirely surprising but with

productions from the Bank of England of more rough times ahead

plus deep unease in the Conservative Party over Europe, how

much trouble is David Cameron in? - - projections from the Bank of

England. Compared to what we have been talking about, not very much.

Cameron is doing badly on these and other fronts. He got a pasting in

the by-elections and the elections we have had, foreign audiences may

not know this, but are the police commissioners. Only 15% turnout.

Deeply embarrassing. Those who did turn out said, people fought for

democracy, our duty is to vote. This is what happens in mid-term. I

could flip the argument and say the Labour opposition ought to be far

more ahead of the government at this stage in the political cycle.

20% knocked 10%. The government has had a bad week but the opposition

has not had a good week -- 20% not 10%. Considering where we all are

with the eurozone, it could be a lot worse for Cameron. Would you

can see there is a lot of unease in the Conservative Party? We have a

big European summit this week by David Cameron's leadership, some

people would say, it is again on the line. What are you going to do

about the European budget? He does a test for Europe and for him.

is a funny sort of test because David Cameron cannot win this one.

If they vetoed it, it will end up that he will pay more. The

Eurosceptic critics know this. The German position was to have a real-

terms freeze, inflation only. The European budget is not big and the

power is symbolic. A lot of people bullying Cameron want to get

Britain out. I have difficulty following that has a point of logic.

I can normally understand what politicians are doing, but it seems

The possibility of disintegration within the Tory party is greater on

Europe than any other subject. I believe that defeat in mid-term

election is commonplace in Britain, it happens in every single cycle.

And also, there is this embarrassment of the Police and

Crime Commissioners, creating possibly a second and rival power

centre within the law enforcement structure. Whether it was really

necessary at this point, that said, I think the real crisis is this

battle, this infighting in the Conservative Party which goes on

and on. He was a Conservative Prime Minister that took Britain into

Europe. I think trade with Europe has been wonderful for Britain. It

has created prosperity. We do have a large deficit. That may be true,

but this is because of the dilemma, this ambivalence Britain has, in or

out. That is no good for Britain. well saved mark the last. I know

you have a certain view on that. do agree that Labour should have

done better, considering these mid- term elections. But a lot of

independents have been doing one in the PCC elections and what I am

getting is there is a sense of fatigue and disenchantment among

mainstream politicians. The Lib Dems were completely destroyed, I

believe they lost their deposit. And there was a swing to Labour,

the Conservatives tried to undermine it, but it is 2.5 times

the swing needed for Labour to win in the next General Election. But

Corby is significant in that sense. It could potentially signal a

Labour win in the General Election. But there is general disenchantment

with the three parties, I think. The attitude people have had

towards the PCC elections, I think, is far more a state and on how the

machinery of British politics is run, rather than the Conservative

Party itself. But this is another episode where the Conservative

Party is appearing in a shambles, they have lodged an end up --

another inquiry into the PCC elections. -- they have launched.

It does not help their image, this slight the incompetent, lots of

policy but no followed through. Europe, this week, a big summit.

Cameron meeting Angela Merkel. Not a meeting of minds? Or one speaks

always about the French and British not getting along but the real

fracture in Europe is the British and the Germans. I do not know if

it is because they want a reconciliation after the war, or

because the interests are perceived as very different. The jealousy of

Britain towards the success of Germany. Whatever there is. The

Europeans are starting to get a bit fed up with the British, wanting

always to fight, not being true Europeans. Without Europe, Britain,

it would be nowhere. The political weight is given to Britain. The

feeling of belonging that is respected by India, China and

America, what would be to do without it being there? Michael

agreed with you on that. It was a fantasy to withdraw from Europe.

But we hear about British and French shopkeepers doing very well

out of Europe... There is the choice between Britain, it is not

between pro and anti-Europeans, it is eurosceptic and... Just to

pursue that, you have always argued that Britain should get on with an

in or outvote and satellite once and for all. And I think now we

have got to look -- on over that and the only solutions are to go --

are to lead Britain go its own way. You call that insanity. If the

British continue to ask for special demands all the time, that is what

we will be heading for. A sensible position for Britain is to wait and

see what happens to the eurozone. You seemed to imply the eurozone

will make it, I hope it does, but you may be wrong. A lot of people

at the centre of the project seemed to think the eurozone will come

through because the European Union was founded to prevent nationalism

and war in Europe. Tell that to the Greeks this week. The Germans are

still not acknowledging their obligations. They created this

design, with some French assistance, and it cost a lot of trouble.

there is crisis in Britain as well, the euro is doing very well.

have flat growth this week, you know that. I cannot agree. Better

than Spain. What the British do not understand is that Fido -- is

that... I do agree that the eurozone might make it. I do

believe that it well. Therefore, this panic that was there a year

ago is possibly not there now. But I think the crisis is not over.

There are still a humped across. That will have to be taken into

account. -- there is still a hump to cross. Old Britain is better off

playing a central role in Europe than a sideline. That is something

British parties have to get into the minds. Including perhaps more

the Conservative Party than any other. To return to the start of

this conversation, that is the core of David Cameron's problems, there

is a fault-line within the Tory party on Europe. They say we are

the third force in European politics. It is true that

euroscepticism is a very strong force with them conservatism and

David Cameron, just like John Major, will find it difficult to deal with.

It is a bit like the Scottish mass loyalist saying if only we were

separate from those good for people in England. -- the Scottish

nationalists. There is a majority are staying in the EU within

Britain. Consistently with all the main parties except Conservatives,

which is deeply split. It is very deeply rooted, they want to be

outside the European Union instead of the old guard who wanted to run

out from inside. It is getting more complicated. I seem to remember

that General de Gaulle was described as someone who speaks of

Europe but a least thinks of France. -- but only things. You have the

eurozone, his domineering economy which is doing very well. It is

helping the poor. Reluctantly, maybe. In Germany,... They are

cutting their spending at the moment, there should be services

across the board. They should be pumping demand in to other

economies by increasing their own domestic demand. The Germans are

exporting the wrong solution. It is the wrong one for them as well. We

will all be bankrupt in that scenario. To come back to your

original question. I think we cannot separate the European

question from David Cameron's desire to look quite Tory and more

right wing. There are issues that David Cameron likes to take off

every time he likes to cosy up to the hardline or the far right

Conservative Party. That applies to the European position. Sometimes I

do not know what David Cameron really things or believes, because

I think especially with the issue of Europe, he uses it as a lever do

not alienate himself from the hardcore Tory right, for which

Europe is a big issue. And he does it with Trident, he does it with

immigration and lots of other things. Europe is just one salvo in

the kind of number of issues that David Cameron likes to play off in

both parts of his party to keep the Conservative Party strong. He is a

politician, he is like Netanyahu or Obama or President Morsi. Like on

fox-hunting, for instance. It is a totemic issue. You have to juggle

competing forces. All politicians are constrained by the facts on the

ground. They can talk as much as they like, in Cairo, Jerusalem or

London, or Berlin and Paris. We will not leave them out! But the

facts on the ground edge them in and I am puzzled by Cameron for

that reason. The facts are not... really think despite this anti-

Europe rhetoric and all that, there is a majority who want to stay in

Europe. Because you might have the same as in the US. The people who

do not want to stay are the white, male, the UK appetite, hardline

Conservatives. But Britain being a multicultural society, it might be