It's important to know what youngsters think. A teenage girl just wrote to me: "...Everyone sees Abbas (our Palestinian president) as a joke really since all the countries involved in Annapolis refused to shake hands with the Israelis but Abbas is shaking hands & laughs with them like nothing is happening back home in Palestine. And when protests were going on in the streets to show that we are against Annapolis Abbas issued an order for the Palestinian police to break them up and unfortunately they ended up hitting reporters and old age people... most of them ended up in hospitals and one died because of aggresive force used against him. So that how the stituation is here!"

That's not a view from Gaza, where Hamas are holed up under siege. It's from the West Bank, where Abbas and his Fatah party claim to hold sway. Abbas struts the world stage but we don't know how much support he really has because the last election (Jan 2006) put Hamas in charge - soooo inconveniently for the west's supporters of Israel.

I want to ask David Cameron if he thinks it wise to place so much faith in negotiating with Abbas, who doesn't speak for all Palestinians, and maybe not even for half of them. Why leave Hamas out? As Islamists go they are quite moderate. Still, Abbas makes a good puppet doesn't he, Mr C. But that really won't do at all, will it? Meanwhile Jeff Halper, himself an Israeli, in an excellent article "When the Roadmap is a One Way Street - Israel's Strategy for Permanent Occupation" in Counterpunch shows why Annapolis is a charade like all the other 'peace' talks.
http://www.counterpunch.com/halper11272007.html

It's no use sidesteeping this, Mr C, because it won't go away and can only get worse. Time for a new attitude, a new appraisal, new direction and a spot of integrity in British policy. Are you up for it when the time comes?

Why indeed Yorky it was Hamas who saved a courageous fine BBC correspondent. I note the BBC early am News 24) are using US biased accounts of US trained Sunni forces crushing insurgents.

Bush wants good news from Iraq at all costs to boost his revival of the 'road map' to peace. His reliance on Saudi royalty has more depth than we think. Mind you his dada still gets CIA briefs on Middle East cold war. Interesting.

It's difficult to say which is the more obnoxious, scrubs: the House of Saud or the House of Bush.

I think David Cameron should place faith in negotiating with Abbas. It seems some organisations, as have individuals got a vested interest in not moving forward. I accept that Hamas are elected and need to be listened to. It takes great courage to move forward against the tide of hate and I believe that something historic is going to happen at Annapolis.

Enemies of yesterday can now be friends - is that so hard to believe?

In the past, nations may have found it somewhat easier to deal with one individual leader but nowadays, it may be slightly more problematic in that there is a rise of organisations - possibly competing against each other. This surely must have a bearing on the peace process because who do you communicate with?

So,if organisations really really wanted peace and were willing to meet against all odds - it will be most interesting to see who attends Annapolis and who doesn't. And so what if hands are not shaken. Negotiations are about moving forward. Peace needs to be reached in the region, it can happen and will happen against all odds - hopefully sooner rather than later...

"Enemies of yesterday can now be friends..."

Yes it happens all the time, but not too often when the other chap is still smashing your door down, thieving your property, terrorising your family and ruining your livelihood... and shows no sign of stopping till he's got everything.

As for who attended Annapolis and who didn't, what about those who deliberately weren't invited. And if we wish to deal with a country's leader shouldn't we make sure it's the one who's democratically elected and has majority support? After all, western democracy is a bit funny that way.

P.S. Angel: seriously, if you're interested in what's really going on you can do no better than start with that link to Jeff Halper's piece in Counterpunch. Prof. Halper runs ICAHD (the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions). it takes real guts to stand in front of your own country's bulldozers (as he does) to defend Palestinian homes against illegal destruction and then re-build some of them.

His website is http://www.icahd.org/eng/ and there's a UK site too. Of course there are many more sources for truth.

Yorker, I have read the link you have posted. And for your information, I have already been researching for a number of years now, as to what is going on in the region. So pleaseeee don't patronise me! Not everone shares your opinion or views and since we live in a democracy, kindly try and accept that there maybe differences of opinion.

I am and always will be an internal optomist - I like many of my friends, colleagues and aquaintances hope that peace can be achieved. I have friends on both side of the divide.

Annapolis talks need to be given a chance. Lets wait and see what happens....

Oh pardon me all to hell.... your years of "researching" seem to have left you confused. Never mind "opinion" or "views", try dealing in facts, especially those on the ground.

I'm so sorry to hear that you are somewhat agitated Yorker. Such is Life.

Yorker, that's rude. Angel sounds reasonable to me.
People will disagree with your views - but please show some respect!!!

Thank you. :)

Yes, you're right canvas. Pang of guilt. So very sorry Angel, dunno what came over me.

I think what came over you Yorkie is your arrogance at assuming that only your point of view is valid. It isn't! (theres a surprize!!!)

If it was why then are so few voices world wide seeing things as you do?

I am not going to re-enter this debate as my views have been expressed time and time again elsewhere. However some observations:-

Hamas, if they expressed the slightest intention of renouncing violence, could easily become involved in this kind of exchange... but they won't so they aren't.. It is ultimately a self defeating policy on their part.

Angel, Sadly though I think your optimism is based on a naive belief that both sides are showing good faith and able to deliver.

I think on the ground that is not the case... the parties who came to Annapolis don't have the political power to deliver anything. The Israelis have consistently behaved abominably, as have all Palestinian factions I am afraid.

But maybe, and only a glimmer of hope may be perceived if, even in the background, we see what happened over a long period in Belfast:- The purse strings being squeezed.....

Could financial pressure from the US force Israel into some concessions?.. maybe, but Olmert and or his successor would have to do a huge selling/persuasion job to the Israeli people, who are fractious and argumentative as hell.

And Abbas.. well he doesn't fully control anything.

I'm not sure you're right there, jonjii. The political elite in the west have closed ranks on this, and theirs is the view we hear most. It is a carefully programmed view unrelated to the actual facts, as I think you yourself now acknowledge. For example, you'd get your political throat cut if you dared to suggest Hamas are not terrorists but the Israelis are, and that Israel is not the western-style democracy they think but something much, much nastier. That would go down like a lead balloon in Friends of Israel dominated Westminster and Washington.

Read the Middle East press and the electronic media (and even some sections of the Jewish press) and it's a different story.

The truth is out there for those who can be bothered to weigh the facts. And they should be bothered because that big unsolved problem in the ME - the Israel-Palestine conflict - impacts here and could have much worse reprecussions if not sorted soon. Sticking plasters won't do, it's justice that's needed. If you can find any Middle East expert who thinks Annapolis is geared to deliver justice, please post the link here.

I actually disagree.. what is needed is a total cessation of hostilities violence and atrocities, followed by concessions by both or all factions, withdrawal to acceptable lines and a genuine attempt by all to live together.

After that some real peace deals and some kind of arrangement such as the "Truth and Reconciliation" commission that Tutu ran in South Africa to draw and end to the perpetual bitter tit for tat.. (you know... Your grandfather shot at my grandfather sort of thing)

The dead are unfortunately beyond help but I really would like to see and end to current atrocities.

Demands for Justice will increase not decrease the bitterness and enmity I fear.. However there is fat chance of any of the resolutions and agreements from Annapolis being realized.

Whoops, Whoa I had sworn not to get embroiled in this debate again.

Forgive me everyone

I am shtum on this subject from here on out

Hear, hear. While Annapolis was going on I was getting bulletins from the Ministry of Health in Gaza about the rising deaths among cancer and kidney failure patients who can't get proper treatment because the Israelis are blocking drugs and equipment spares at the border and refusing applications, even from groups like Physicians for Human Rights, to transfer out the critically ill. Of course, it's in blatant breach of Geneva Conventions.

This kind of terrorism while a peace conference is going on takes some beating, and illustrates why pious demands forunilateral renunciation of violence are ridiculous.

Sorry jonjii, but you've got things in the wrong order. First withdraw and end the occupation. Then discuss a lasting peace.

Please don;t be silent Jonjii your views are important - Hey what roll has Blair in all this? all this nasty man seems to be doing is trying to remedy Iraq - why is his conscious pricking, don't think so, maybe he is trying hard to be a good Roman Catholic before his conversion!

Scrubbs I am not sure about this "acceptance" into the communion of the Roman Church.

For a start it is an insult to the Queen, whom Tony met at least once a week for 10 years. An insult to the British people saying effectively that our church is not good enough and he holds us in contempt.

If he was sincere he should have done it quietly with little fuss.

But I also think he is looking for absolution. Well the Catholics claim that the Pope is infallible in spiritual matters and so if he grants absolution that absolution is valid.

("Sorry all you people that I have been instrumental in harming and having killed, the British people who I have consistently sold out and lied to.. I now have a 'Get out of jail free Pass'")

I just find it all a bit opportunistic and frankly grubby.

I agree, he should go about it quietly, why should the rest of us need to know or even care. I can't say I agree that it's an insult. Our established church is a washout and an embarrassment. The only thing that impresses is its architecture.