Al Jazeera calls it the ‘Sixth War’ of the Arabs against Israel. Israel calls it a defensive military operation which comes under the umbrella of ‘having the right to defend itself against terrorism’. Whatever you choose to call it, the terms of the Middle East crisis are pretty much all interchangeable.

Depending on who you ask, the ‘terrorists’ are also the ‘saviours’ and the ‘attackers’ are also the ‘victims’. Though there is a distinct asymmetry here, Lebanese and Israeli civilians have paid dearly with their lives in this latest round of Middle-East muscle-flexing.

Upon closer inspection however, it is clear that there are other layers to this conflict, which are of a more subtle nature than all the senseless death and destruction. A huge public relations battle is going on here, a war in which the weapons are not rockets or missiles but instead are images, prejudices and emotions. This is the war for the hearts and minds.

Israel, for its part, is only too aware of this. When the crisis started and the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors to the UN were summoned in front of the UN Security Council, the PR war had begun. The Israeli Ambassador’s speech was a plea to the hearts and minds of the Lebanese people, serving almost as an offer to rid them of the scourge of Hezbollah. The Lebanese Ambassador, on the other hand, cited Israeli aggression without mentioning Hezbollah’s kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers. Furthermore, the Israeli Foreign Minister has openly stated that the high number of Lebanese civilian casualties is ‘problematic’ for Israel’s image abroad. Then, a major Israeli newspaper reported that the Israeli Prime Minister has met with some 50 spokespeople from the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the Israel Defence Forces and other Israeli government agencies, to instruct them on the principal messages that they should be delivering in appearances before the foreign media.

The principle Israeli message in this PR war being that when Israel kills civilians, Israel views this as a failure – but when Hezbollah kills civilians, Hezbollah see this as a success.

However, even by the most conservative of estimates, Israel seems to have failed a lot more often than Hezbollah has succeeded.

While the Hezbollah PR machine may not be as polished and sophisticated as the Israeli one, the importance of the PR war has not been lost on Hezbollah either. Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader has become something of a poster boy and indeed a hero in popular Arab thought. In fact, Nasrallah has spawned a souvenir industry churning out everything from tapes and CDs of his speeches to posters, key rings and T-shirts in the wake of this latest conflict. Shopkeepers and stall owners in Arab towns are reporting that sales of Nasrallah merchandise have risen.

The reasoning behind this is that for many in the region, Hezbollah have done what Arab leaders seem to be incapable of doing, and this is standing up to the mighty military and political machine which is Israel. So, while they have been adopted as a voice for the Arabs against oppression, various Arab leaders are not impressed. Saudi Arabia drew a clear distinction between Hezbollah and Lebanon, and blamed the former for sparking this crisis. This might be down to a very real fear that Hezbollah has emerged to Arab masses as a champion for Arab causes, as an agent with the ability to rectify perceived injustices in parts of the Arab world, and, importantly, has the potential to create revolutions and challenge the leaderships.

But what if this PR fails? Things are suddenly not so black and white when we realise that nearly 20% of Israel’s population are actually Sunni Muslim or Christian Arabs. Add to this the fact that nearly 40% of the Lebanese population are Christian. Then consider the way in which Hezbollah rockets have hit Israeli Arab towns and villages, causing death and destruction. Israeli air raids have targeted Lebanese Christian and Sunni Muslim areas that are not affiliated with Hezbollah.

So, if we strip away the labels of Israel, Lebanon, Jew, Shia, Sunni, Christian, there is only one thing we are left with in this situation – human suffering and the loss of humanity itself.

Sometimes if you keep pushing at a door – eventually it opens! At my recent meeting with our local Haringey Police Commander, Chief Superintendent Simon O’Brien, I asked him if we could have the new Highgate Safer Neighbourhood Team actually based in Highgate. After all, that’s what local people tell me they want. Police working and stationed in the area they patrol – rather than being based far away and travelling to the area as and when. And the good news is that he has agreed – subject to finding appropriate premises and the Metropolitan Police Estates Department agreeing. So we’re not home and dry yet!

I will be asking the Highgate ward councillors (my Lib Dem colleagues Neil Williams, Justin Portess and Bob Hare) to keep a look out for appropriate premises. In fact – if anyone reading this knows of somewhere suitable, let me know. I think it probably should be on a main thoroughfare – so that it is right bang where people walk past and not off the beaten track. I am going to go out with local officers in the autumn to walk the streets together to look for possible sites. It may not come off – there are a lot of people who still have to agree it – but best foot forward I say!

For years – ever since the old Highgate Police Station closed – local people have been asking for it to be re-opened. Unfortunately, this is not going to be the new home for the team. Highgate Police Station long ago ceased to be a working police station and for years now has housed other organisations (and once a building is no longer used by the police it is much, much harder to get it back).

It’s a shame in a way though that the old building won’t be put back into police use. I remember as a little girl being lost and going (or being taken I can’t remember) to the police station where a very nice policeman rang my mother. He said: ‘Mrs Ryness, I think I have your little girl here’. Sooooo Dixon of Dock Green and very kind!

This good news has come about because of the introduction of Safer Neighbourhood Teams coinciding with the need to modernise the police estate. It has finally been recognised that local policing is what people want – to make them feel safer and to be safer. At the same time – the old Victorian Police stations are no longer ‘fit for purpose’ to use the currently popular vernacular. So the idea of stationing local teams in the local area is an idea whose time has come! Way to go…

I literally could not believe it when my Lib Dem councillor colleagues informed me that Labour had actually refused to let local residents speak on the proposed CPZs etc at the Haringey Council meeting on 17th July – despite residents turning up to express their views.

Not only would Labour not let local people speak then – but they also kept the issue off the agenda at the recent Muswell Hill Area Assembly. And to complete the hat-trick of secrecy and closed minds – none of the local councillors in Highgate, Muswell Hill, Alexandra and Fortis Green wards have been given a chance to have a say on the plans for their wards either. Whether it’s directly or through their elected representatives – the council clearly doesn’t want to listen to the public.

The Area Assembly should be the forum where problems should be discussed in embryo – long before concrete proposals are agreed and put to public consultation. That is the forum where a proper assessment of local parking stress needs to be brought first, along with a clear published statistical base outlining the current parking and traffic situation. That is the way to discuss an issue like this sensibly. And if there’s no problem and no public demand for action – then the issue can be put to bed long before lots of council time and money have been spent working up plans.

Labour have shown a shocking lack of concern for the views and wishes of the people of Haringey. I have written to the Chief Executive asking for the responses to the now closed consultation to be not only available to local councillors (they refused to show them to Fortis Green councillor Martin Newton – that’s another secret the council is keeping) but also to any local resident who wishes to examine them. They could easily be put up on the Council website.

There will be residents in favour and residents against Labour’s proposed parking plans but I doubt if there will be anyone who believes Labour have approached this in a proper and inclusive manner. The methodology is so brutish that almost everyone who has written to me is convinced this is just a way of raising revenue and bears little relationship to solving any real problems.

And that is a real shame, because it means the debate risks boiling down to "big CPZ" versus "nothing" when in fact there’s a host of details, such as yellow lines, number and location of pay and display bays, hours of parking restrictions, rules of discretion for traffic wardens, design of junctions, policy on parking in driveways, and so on and on, and I doubt very much whether the details on every one of these measures has been got 100% right across every last part of the area. But when the council blunders in that way it has, what chance is there of genuine parking and traffic issues getting a hearing and a productive discussion getting going amongst residents and local businesses?

They say that summer is here. The time for Wimbledon, picnics in the park and barbeques. However, it seems to me that for many Asian people, the marriage season is also upon us. I have recently had two interns from an Asian background in my Parliamentary office. Apart from the correspondence and research that they help out with, we do sometimes get the chance to chat as well! When I enquire about weekend or summer plans, attending several weddings seems prominent in their diaries.

Marriage is a rite of passage common to all of us, but we all have different ways of celebrating. So, with my inquisitive mind, I enquire about these weddings – and what a learning experience this is. One of the interns, who is from a Hindu background, describes a whole series of parties and events that wedding guest must attend before the actual wedding takes place. There is a world rich in colours and rituals that I am immediately transported to. It seems like the wedding itself is more or less the climax, or the formality at the end of all this fun and frolics. One such ritual that particularly stays in my mind is where the bridegroom’s shoes are taken and hidden at one of the events by the friends and family of the bride. These can only be returned if the bridegroom is willing to part with some cash – and the wedding ceremony itself will take place only after this happens. To me, this seems a brilliant way of ‘breaking the ice’ between the respective families of the bride and the bridegroom – and of course is also a great way of testing the bridegroom’s mettle!

The other intern is from a Muslim background. I find his descriptions intriguing as they offer a different picture of Islam than the one we are constantly being presented with. He does re-iterate that he wasn’t brought up in a strict Islamic environment, but was aware of his religious heritage. His descriptions also consist of many events and gatherings, of a lot of preparation, delicious food, DJs and fun. Again, the wedding ceremony seems to be just a small part of a much bigger picture. He also speaks of the religious ceremony, telling me that at the last such wedding he went to, the imam went to great lengths to stress that in Islam, a marriage that does not have the full and genuine consent of both the bride and the bridegroom, is deemed to be invalid. He also tells me that the bride, who is sitting in a different location to the groom at the time of the religious ceremony, has to be give her consent three times, in front of two independent witnesses, before the marriages can be officiated. His descriptions certainly do challenge the notion that is sadly held by many that Islam is oppressive religion, especially towards women.

However, I am also well aware that problems do exist. There are still instances of people in the Asian community being forced into marriages and of course there is terrible scourge of ‘honour’ killings – a complete misnomer in my opinion. One of my interns tells me that for some families, matters of family pride and standing in the community are put of ahead of the true happiness of a child. Now, I can understand that there is a certain comfort and security to be found in maintaining a strong community unit and consolidating it through marital ties, especially if you are a minority ethnic group. However, I do believe that the Asian community is firmly part of our wider community, and that our Asian youth should not see a clash of cultures, where the two are mutually exclusive, but rather should see how cultures can co-exist and complement each other.

My interns say that things have moved on a lot from the times of the parents’ generation, where many marriages were forcefully arranged. Whereas a lot of young Asians do still marry into the same ethnic and religious communities, for various reasons, there is a minority who are delaying marriage to pursue careers or marrying into other cultures. Basically, there is no longer a ‘one size fits all’ policy, nor should there be my intern argues. I think this is the right mentality; acceptance and tolerance go a long way. Please enjoy any weddings you will attend this summer – oh, and of course all the parties and gatherings beforehand!

I protest! In fact I protest often. Because planning applications can ruin peoples’ lives yet planning law is often on the side of the developer. More often than not, ordinary local people find they are David fighting Goliath when it comes to fighting an application near them.

Just recently, despite my MP protests, councillors’ protests, residents’ protests and a campaign group’s protests, Goliath won again – and a concrete factory on will be built on Cranford Way, in the middle of a residential area with narrow streets and lots of schools. Just the place for HGVs to thunder through daily – not!

One thing the case highlights is the way the rules favour developers. The presumption is in favour of development and the rules reflect this. Just one example – if the developer is ruled against by a council – they can appeal. But if the council rules in favour of the developer – no-one opposed to the development can appeal. Where’s the fairness in that? And developers have fancy lawyers and seemingly endless money; if they fail on one application they come back with another.

In the case of the concrete factory, the council rejected the application but then on appeal Her Majesty’s Inspector decided that the noise, pollution and traffic wouldn’t be too bad after all – and overturned the local council’s decision.

Now, I have no doubt that many, many planning inspectors to an excellent job. But there is fundamentally something worrying about a process where the final decision is made by someone who doesn’t have to live with the results – and indeed whose future career and prospects only very slightly hinge on how good or bad their decisions turn out to be down the road. That isn’t a system that is likely to bring the best results. For all the flaws of councils and councillors on occasions, they know that if they make a decision and get it wrong, the angry public can – and often do – kick them out. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in democratic accountability – because that is what gives people the most say and power over their own lives and communities.

And outside of a consultation every decade or so on the local council’s Unitary Development Plan (which zones areas) there is no local say on what gets built if a site is available. It’s all left to the developers who, let us face it, are not necessarily working for the good of the community.

And it isn’t just about concrete factories! We are in desperate need of more housing. Mayor Livingstone has set targets for each borough. But his name is being used in vain in two ways. Firstly – luxury housing crammed into impossible sites which damage the surrounding settings and are nothing to do with the Mayor’s London plan and the need for affordable social housing. Secondly – we get high rise, poorly designed, lowest common denominator developer housing foisted on areas of deprivation. Cheap, shoddy housing is then defended on the grounds, “but it is needed”. But that is no excuse for such poor quality.

Next week I will be giving evidence to a local planning enquiry to support local people against such a case – another thoughtless, ugly, anonymous block. It will be the third planning enquiry I have appeared at since becoming MP only just over a year ago. If these developments were well-designed and attractive they would not run into the sort of hail of protest that regularly greets them and they would not blight the built environment nor the aspirations of the people living there for decades to come. We do need housing – but we don’t need built-in future deprivation.

Developers won’t like me for this – but I think they get away with murder. Perhaps we need to introduce a developers’ report card and publish it. Let’s interview the tenants of their buildings, one, two and five and ten years after they move in. Let’s score just how pleasant and well-designed their buildings actually are to live in – and publish it, and let the scores be considered when future permission is given or refused. And let’s have a review of Planning Enquiry decisions that examines whether developments that get the go ahead with conditions attached have those conditions enforced – and if they do not – then lets make the Government liable for the costs of enforcement – not the Council who rejected the original decision. And let’s have a right of appeal for ordinary people against the granting of permission!

I protest! In fact I protest often. Because planning applications can ruin peoples’ lives yet planning law is often on the side of the developer. More often than not, ordinary local people find they are David fighting Goliath when it comes to fighting an application near them.

Just recently, despite my MP protests, councillors’ protests, residents’ protests and a campaign group’s protests, Goliath won again – and a concrete factory on will be built on Cranford Way, in the middle of a residential area with narrow streets and lots of schools. Just the place for HGVs to thunder through daily – not!

One thing the case highlights is the way the rules favour developers. The presumption is in favour of development and the rules reflect this. Just one example – if the developer is ruled against by a council – they can appeal. But if the council rules in favour of the developer – no-one opposed to the development can appeal. Where’s the fairness in that? And developers have fancy lawyers and seemingly endless money; if they fail on one application they come back with another.

In the case of the concrete factory, the council rejected the application but then on appeal Her Majesty’s Inspector decided that the noise, pollution and traffic wouldn’t be too bad after all – and overturned the local council’s decision.

Now, I have no doubt that many, many planning inspectors to an excellent job. But there is fundamentally something worrying about a process where the final decision is made by someone who doesn’t have to live with the results – and indeed whose future career and prospects only very slightly hinge on how good or bad their decisions turn out to be down the road. That isn’t a system that is likely to bring the best results. For all the flaws of councils and councillors on occasions, they know that if they make a decision and get it wrong, the angry public can – and often do – kick them out. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in democratic accountability – because that is what gives people the most say and power over their own lives and communities.

And outside of a consultation every decade or so on the local council’s Unitary Development Plan (which zones areas) there is no local say on what gets built if a site is available. It’s all left to the developers who, let us face it, are not necessarily working for the good of the community.

And it isn’t just about concrete factories! We are in desperate need of more housing. Mayor Livingstone has set targets for each borough. But his name is being used in vain in two ways. Firstly – luxury housing crammed into impossible sites which damage the surrounding settings and are nothing to do with the Mayor’s London plan and the need for affordable social housing. Secondly – we get high rise, poorly designed, lowest common denominator developer housing foisted on areas of deprivation. Cheap, shoddy housing is then defended on the grounds, "but it is needed". But that is no excuse for such poor quality.

Next week I will be giving evidence to a local planning enquiry to support local people against such a case – another thoughtless, ugly, anonymous block. It will be the third planning enquiry I have appeared at since becoming MP only just over a year ago. If these developments were well-designed and attractive they would not run into the sort of hail of protest that regularly greets them and they would not blight the built environment nor the aspirations of the people living there for decades to come. We do need housing – but we don’t need built-in future deprivation.

Developers won’t like me for this – but I think they get away with murder. Perhaps we need to introduce a developers’ report card and publish it. Let’s interview the tenants of their buildings, one, two and five and ten years after they move in. Let’s score just how pleasant and well-designed their buildings actually are to live in – and publish it, and let the scores be considered when future permission is given or refused. And let’s have a review of Planning Enquiry decisions that examines whether developments that get the go ahead with conditions attached have those conditions enforced – and if they do not – then lets make the Government liable for the costs of enforcement – not the Council who rejected the original decision. And let’s have a right of appeal for ordinary people against the granting of permission!

Every Saturday and Sunday night around 10 o’clock, my poor dog (pedigree mutt) turns into a barking, shivering and shaking bag of nerves. It’s the Kenwood Concerts!

These wonderful concerts stretch way back in my memory (as I lived in Highgate on and off from the age of 5). Of course, in the good old days there weren’t that many; there certainly weren’t as many with firework displays – and there was no corporate hospitality.

Halcyon days when the hoi-polloi could go early enough with blanket and picnic to get right to the front. There was no roped off section. No deckchairs. Just happy bunnies laying out their blankets and picnics higgledy-piggledy. And it was sooooo cheap by comparison to today’s somewhat pricey outing. You’re looking at £100 for four basic – which is a lot for a family outing!

I know, I know – it’s the way of the world. Once it was taken over by ‘professional management’ – it all changed. I guess I am whistling for the moon. However, the increased commercialism has meant increased numbers, increased, parking, increased noise and increased disruption.

Each year now there is a battle between residents and concert organisers over the number of concerts and number of firework displays. Now you cannot park on any Saturday or Sunday for most of Hampstead Road from 2 – 10pm. Beware – because the signs are not overly obvious and the wardens are keen.

I write letters some years to plead for mercy for my dog – but the other side of the coin is that I still think the Kenwood Concerts are incredibly special and a wonderful night out on a summer’s eve and I am kind of proud that they belong to Highgate. And I still go at least once or twice a year.

I sit outside the official ticketed area with friends and children and we have our picnic, listen vaguely to what we can hear of the music, play games and watch the firework display free of charge.

So – as ever – the answer has to lie in the organisers working with local residents to find a reasonable compromise in terms of numbers of concerts and number of firework displays. And I think all of us who go to the concerts – whether we are local or not – we owe a debt of thanks to those residents who suffer our intrusion as we all traipse through their neck of the woods on a beautiful English summer’s eve.

Note: My colleagues in Highgate ward (Lib Dem councillors Bob Hare, Justin Portess and Neil Williams) have written a letter going into some detail about the current plans that are up for debate. You can read it here.

Muswell Hill is a fantastically vibrant area with lots of shops – that’s why everyone wants to come here. But where you get residents and shops and staff and tradesmen, shoppers and everyone else wanting to park, the limited available space (despite two car parks) means some sorting out inevitably becomes necessary. So, on the back of requests for some parking to be made available on the limb of the Broadway that goes off to Colney Hatch Lane – as the shops here suffer from virtually no on-street parking – and to free up what on street parking there is on the main shopping streets – Haringey Council has decided to introduce pay and display in the main streets for short stay parking.

Not unnaturally – there are a number of aspects that will concern local people. There may be increased pressure on the surrounding residential roads as people try to find a free parking place. Removing the free parking on Fortis Green Road – where there are lots of flats – may well result in residents looking for parking on the surrounding residential roads. It may also mean that we lose more front gardens if pressure mounts to the point of people concreting over their front gardens. However, shops should benefit from shoppers being able to find short stay parking and the displacement may not be huge.

Given the high blood pressure that is caused by any proposal to introduce parking restriction or charging, it is vital that local Haringey Council considers all aspects including operating times, charging structure and position of bays to make sure that any scheme that goes ahead is seen as fair, easy to use, and with clear signage that avoids motorists getting parking tickets through misunderstanding the parking times or where they can stop. And above all, Haringey Council must really listen to the views of residents and local shops.

This is where you come in. Copies of the consultation document, including a map of the plans, should be available in Muswell Hill Library during the consultation period, as well as being available from Haringey Council’s website www.haringey.gov.uk.

It is really important to let Haringey Council know your views – so please write to the Council with any comments, support or objections, on the proposed ‘Stop and Shop’ scheme. Please write to Haringey Council, Traffic and Road Safety Group, River Park House, 1st Floor South, 225 High Road, Wood Green N22 8HQ or by email to Streetscene.consultation@haringey.gov.uk. Please also let me know your views.

Taking part in a recent radio show that interviewed knife-carrying kids in my neck-of -the woods, it was clear that they carry for many reasons. First – kids are afraid that without one they will be vulnerable to others with knives. Second – it gives status. With a knife you may not have much else but you’re a big man and who’s going to diss you now? And third – for some it is a fashion accessory.

Lots of kids don’t even know that if you cut an artery in the leg it can kill you. Most of them carry and don’t intend to use – but it happens and they ‘plunge’ and that’s it. So – as with drunk driving – a hard hitting campaign about the consequences of carrying a knife both for the victim and the aggressor can make an impact over time. It’s about education about the realities; face-to-face work with the families or survivors of knifings – so consequences are faced.

We also should have equal sentencing for carrying a knife as carrying a gun – but simple locking away on its own can just shield young people from the reality of their actions, and so doesn’t help reduce the reoffending rate when they’re released. (Far too often it’s forgotten that most people jailed will be released at some point – unless we start imposing ridiculously over-the-top life sentences for every crime – which means making sure people don’t go out and commit more crimes after their sentence is completed is crucial). So – in addition, a combination of punishment, retribution, reparation and rehabilitation is needed.

Next – take away the relative security that young people feel about not being caught carrying a knife. Random metal detector arches going into key places – out of the blue. Has to be random – in timing and placement. I’m against permanent arches in places like schools as that brutalises children and they would just leave them elsewhere anyway. But if that sense of not being caught could be removed – and it becomes too dodgy to carry – the less they will carry.

Then there is the real work is about listening to kids and learning what has to happen to make them feel safe enough not to carry a knife; feel valued enough not to need the status and what it will take to disabuse them of the idea that it is cool. And to do that – we need their help. So we need some poacher turned gamekeepers to help us work it out. It may be part diversion, part care and attention, part education, part aspiration and perhaps taking young people out of their own normal environments – away from peer groups and out of comfort zones and home territory. Remove them from the culture itself and put them to good use helping others, such as doing community service in locations away from home.

One thing for sure, it won’t be quick and it won’t be easy – and it won’t be as cheap as another headline or rushed, knee-jerk legislation!

Anyway, enough from me – let me have your views!

This piece first appeared on LiberalReview.com.