i once read a letter published in an arab newspaper. it was from the father of a suicide bomber. it was addressed to the HAMAS leadership.

the faither simply asked: "why does my son have to be a martyr? why can't i enjoy his company in my old age? why don't you ever send your sons to die?"

i think the words of ms roth and the palestinian father say it all. a soltion has to be found. it requires compromise on both sides. otherwise, people will continue dying.

My previous posting was going to be my last on this subject but I was very surprised and puzzled by the torrent of personal abuse it brought down on me from Brigid –

“doctrinaire”, “factless”, “know nothingness”, “card-carrying stereotyper”, “facile”.

Read my posting again and work out where all that came from!

I posed some questions on the causes of conflict.

I also provided a couple of quotes to give the flavour of views different from the ones expressed. Perhaps Brigid launched her personal attack on me because she did not like the Loewerstein quote about Israel’s dependency on the USA.

Is this a microcosm of war? Put forward an alternative view that someone doesn’t like and be personally attacked. Come on Brigid, open up your mind and heart, and dialogue won’t be as hopeless as you suggest.

Incidentally, to save Brigid sitting up ‘til the wee small hours again conjuring up epithets, I am not a Moslem or a Jew or a Christian, just an impartial enquirer who likes the Socratic approach to inquiry.

Terrorism needs to be on everyone's agenda, and discussing the causes rationally and calmly would be a good start.

Stan's viewpoint is well summed-up in the last line of his contribution: "Israel is not an independent nation."

Along the way, he 'calmly and rationally' (to borrow his suggested mode of conduct for us contributors) accuses Israel of "constantly expanding its borders", "denying the Palestinians... hope", "remains intransigent", "continues to disadvantage the Palestinian people" and continues to "vilify Moslems and Arabs".

All of this in response to a short and impassioned essay from a bereaved mother decrying the release of unrepentant, self-confessed murderers.

With the events of London and 7/7 still in the headlines, 'calm' and 'rational' get trumped by 'good sense', 'plain logic' and 'abhor terror in all its manifestations'.

Stan: I'm sincerely sorry if you detect some sort of unreasonable tone in my voice. It's not there, believe me.

I'm even sorrier that you feel the need to establish your non-Moslem, non-Jew, non-Christian credentials. As if those in our democratic Australian society who can't make the same claim are somehow incapable of rising to your heights of logic and insight.

Terror is not someone else's problem, but our's. It's not a distant threat, but here and now. It's not going to be neutralized by understanding or tolerance. Some will hold that a solid dose of "Socratic approach" will prevent the next bus bomb. I have my doubts.

Terror is the immediate issue confronting all of us who live in civilized societies, and we absolutely have to agree on what to do about it. I greatly prefer Frimet Roth's concerns to your's. I sincerely do not mean to offend you by saying so.

Stan, unfortunately the Loewerstein (is it Lowenstein?) link did not work. Perhaps its something on my end, but if you could check the address I would be grateful. He sounds familiar, I wouldn’t mind taking a look.

The AAC site however was disappointing. The recommended articles included many (too many) by Edward Said.

Yes wrighta, I had the same difficulty with the Loewenstein link so I emailed him. He couldn’t understand the problem either. The next time I tried it worked. Here it is again: (Incidentally I know nothing about him and don’t necessarily endorse his comments – he is very outspoken!)

http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/

I agree with you about the AAC link but I found another one on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which I found useful. It’s pretty basic but seems to be balanced and clear:

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/

The London bombings have raised some interesting speculation on the causes of terrorism.

There seem to be utilitarian or self-interest consequences to humanitarian/investigative approaches to many problems. Canceling debts to third world countries seems to be another example of what appears to be a humanitarian approach with results which could be beneficial to everyone.

Thanks Stan, the Loewenstein blog is working for me now.

The other link also appears to be very good.