Again, the suicidal bombers strike terror into the very heart of Israel and the political temperature rises. The Palestinians are in a mutinous mood, they are surly and defensive. They have an absolute ruthlessness and total dedication to the cause in which they believe. It is a tenuous situation and further trouble will ensue. I begin to wonder if peace can be achieved if the atrocities continue? In such a climate of deep-seated hatred the Palestinians are fast becoming unwanted anachronisms. As things stand, there is very little sign of the troubles abating and I remain apprehensive. I sincerely hope my worse fears will not emerge and that they will not be torn asunder.

Yesterday’s terror was brutal and senseless The bus bombing in Israel has not cowed the Israelis nor made them weary. The Israelis have moved beyond the anger and fury, I sense complete and utter rage. Yes, it creates tears and horror for those involved but the Israelis have come to accept the horror of random death with the fatalism of those who live with the fear of it on a daily basis. Such bombings only enervate the Israelis into further action. Each outrage makes them stronger and more resistant to terror. How can peace be achieved if such outbreaks of terrorism continually occur? The Palestinians can never win - unless the Israelis, in momental rage at a heinous irrational act, go berserk.

You cannot separate the nuts from the zealots, the truth from madness. There is hate, filled with such a single-minded pitiless intensity on both sides that gravitates to the ultimate extreme. I've seen the effect of such rage on people. I also know that it projects them into that region of uncaring, which lies close to the borders of madness, a state which is characterised by implacability. Hate can be an oppressive bedfellow.

I ask myself if people in Israel and Palestine can accept the of idea of peace and are capable of adapting to the changes it involves? Are they willing to inter-act with one another? Can they, both the Israelis and Palestinians, afford to be charitable? They will have to demonstrate an ability to change to accommodate peace. Their bellicosity will have to change. Neither have accepted the inevitability of peace.

I ask myself will further acts of terrorism and counter-action be worth the tears and pain? Both the Palestinians and the Israelis are destined to suffer, unless they can change. The answer lies in their hands, only through them will change come. Many will continue to weep at the dawn and dying of each day. Tears, plenteous and free will continue to flow before peace is reached and they will continue to be filled with consuming pain as they move deeper and deeper into the flowing dark of the utter madness of retaliation and counter retaliation.

The very survivability of the Ba’th regime can be considered a real achievement in view of the US’s determination to overthrow it - Iraq has undoubtedly paid a far higher price because of this. The real victims are the Iraqi people who bear the full consequences of Saddam’s leadership. As to your penultimate point - the (Gulf) war did not remove the threat but spawned a new and dangerous Middle Eastern arms race, which involved the purchase of long-range missiles by Saudi Arabia, and the development of chemical warfare capabilities by Libya and Syria. This, together with the friction between Israel and the Arab States, could lead to further horrendous risks throughout the Middle East.

I agree the Iraqi disease is hardly benign and I suspect the American’s are in a dilemma. They may find themselves locked into a situation in which they find that they have no other choice. Saddam continues to remain evasive and I retain a healthy scepticism as to his intents and it is for this reason that the US maintains significant military forces on, or near the Border. One has to assume that at some future date it will lead to conflict. The Gulf War may be over, but the end of the conflict is still not in sight.

Personally, I believe the American’s will have to take action – the question is when? As I read the news reports, my instincts, the words written, tell me that the situation is deteriorating and strife appears in their shifting pattern – even conflict. I get the definite sense that people view such action as a necessary evil and it may well prove to be a positive move rather than a negative.
Military action will have implications for the region in general? The Iraq regime lacks the power to defend itself and has lost the power to mount an offensive but will Saddam retaliate and if so, will this retaliation take the form of deliberate acts of terrorism or a chemical attack on population centres and economic targets as a defensive move?

While anything is possible from Saddam I, like you, remain decidedly pessimistic – I doubt whether Saddam will reverse his animosity. He finds it convenient to present the Americans as the real villains. It is they who cause the stoical Iraqi populace economic hardship and privation. After all, to do so simplifies the picture of the situation. It also justifies Saddam’s stance and an attack on the country by an external power would justify and strengthen his position. It is also convenient giving Saddam the moral cover of martyrdom and suffering in the face of an unjust superior force, to camouflage the comprehensive defeat of his goals. Used previously this approach has had a good measure of success, as the enormous pressures placed on the Iraqi people reinforce its cohesiveness and create a strong sense of shared destiny.

Iraq has agreed to readmit UN inspection teams. Iraq in the long term has no option but to accept the UN resolutions, but will Iraq fully comply to the terms set out? Adherence to any agreement would seem to be unlikely. In the past, Iraq has proved hostile to the idea of weapons inspections and the idea that Iraq has fully accepted UN resolutions seems inconceivable. Iraq has shown a flagrant disregard for treaties and rules of law and I am little reassured by Saddam Hussein's recent delaying tactics in talks between UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix over inspections details. We should not be fooled by a simulated acceptance of UN conditions. There is a great deal of subtle activity underlying Iraq’s acceptance.

The UN must make every effort to negotiate and enforce compliance regarding the monitoring of weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately, acceptance is Iraq's decision. They have the choice. If Iraq refuses to recognise the terms, then I believe the UN must consider military action. The UN cannot afford to underestimate Saddam's ruthlessness. Further resistance is a very distinct and viable possibility. Saddam is completely unpredictable and does not follow any logical pathway. Whatever the reason for his compliance, if he backtracks from the agreement, then I believe the UN should demonstrate its power to compel the ratification of any agreement made by Iraq.

The US has made it known that it will also pick up the gauntlet if any agreement is not adhered too? Will Saddam deliberately try to provoke the US and will his ulteria motive be to gain further sympathy from Arab nations and bring the Middle East into conflict?

Just about anyone is capable of anything. Our ethical values, which we tend to think as being solid and incorruptible, corrode in intemperate moral climates such as Rawanda and Bosnia more quickly than can be believed. We cannot continue to sit on the sidelines in anticipation that the problems will solve ithemselves. Can we offer no protection against the desperate ways men devise to harm and kill their fellow men?

From a very early age one accepts, believes, or is told that certain things exist in a certain manner. That society is based on order, on reason, on justice. And that whenever anything goes wrong, one can appeal to the innate decency, or common sense, or a notion of legality in people to rectify error or offer redress. Then suddenly you discover that what you accepted as premises and basic conditions, simply does not exist. Where you expected something solid there turns out to be nothing. Everything you've taken for granted, with so much certainty that you never questioned it, turns out to be an illusion. Certainties and beliefs become lies. I'll never stop believing in justice. In a Century that has seen Hitler, Stalin, Biafra, Vietnam, Pol Pot Bangladesh, Rawanda, etc., what does life truly mean? It doesn't mean much does it.

By doing nothing, by waiting for a more opportune moment to intervene, more people go on dying. Indifference is the greatest sin of all. I believe we have to trade our concern for self, for wealth and security for an equally intense desire to fight whatever is evil and to do whatever is necessary to bring the situation under control. You write of the UN. Power has a way of becoming an end in itself. In such a bureaucracy nothing gets done until it is too late or virtually too late. If it is actually too late, then obviously nothing should be done and the bureaucracy sighs its collective relief and returns to its beloved routine. When you decide the fate of others, you need a very active conscience to start acting against your own interests and it would seem to me that conscience does not stand up very well to much heat or cold. I suppose it is madness to hope that things will change. There seems to be two kinds of madness that we should guard against. One is the belief that we can do everything and the other is the belief we can do nothing. In the past, our forefathers were willing to risk their personal security and future for what they believed in. Now we have the problem of apathy. The apathy of nations and Governments. The apathy of ourselves. We cannot continue to remain indifferent to what is happening. Tomorrow is as important as today for it hopes we have learned something from yesterday.

I agree with your comments. Man has achieved a lot but what have we really achieved? We pollute the air we breathe and our river and water sources. We're destroying great lakes and seas throughout the world. We're killing vast tracks of forest by acid rain and burning. We've deliberately filled our atmosphere with radio-active fallout, knowing its consequences, that has put poison into the bones of our children. We've made bombs that can wipe out the human race in minutes and they are armed and primed to fire with men sitting deep in command centres around the world ready to push the button on word of command. We've bred new strains of genes that can cause fatal incurable disease which could wipe out the majority of the human race. We create weapons of destruction that can only be guessed at. We will have satellites of death arcing space and laser platforms with their bursts of instant, swift, burning death. We've made fantastic new discoveries but what have we done with them? I think you know the answer as well as I. I could continue but you know how I feel. We are a species that has become insane. All too often we hate each other and we only care for our own ideology, politics and nationalism. It becomes hard to tell oneself that we are good people. People destroy one another and oppress one another and suffer and die of hunger and disease. Events cannot wait for condemnation to be raised. The conscience of every man is involved and we have a humanitarian responsibility to all men

You've opened my mind to the complex and tyrannical realities of modern warfare. I'm not sure I truly understand the philosophy and logistics of deterrence, the lethal game of strategic threat and counter threat nor the enigmatic rubrics of intelligence. You tell me that it is a deterrent to guarantee the security of nations and a step has to be taken to reduce the building of such weapons and that any nuclear threat has to be neutralised. I understand the point you are making and I have read the papers you have sent. I've studied the words, read the theories but I can see I have never really understood the matter nor the mechanism of men and their weapons. Yes, I do grasp the horrendous danger of nuclear weapons and that such weapons loom over mankind like a death warrant. I also understand that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented and I agree with your comment that low yield tactical nuclear weapons have a place in defensive arsenals. Any threat of immediate retaliation by a potent striking force should deter any aggressor but surely such nuclear deterrence has become a suicide pact which is conceived in fear?

You write that no men, no group or country should ever be allowed to control such weapons so that they can bring others to their knees by their use or threat. I agree with your comments entirely, the world cannot afford to face the reality of nuclear terrorism and that nations have to act now in concert to ban such weapons by all possible means - even if necessary by force of arms (ie Iraq). Can peace be found in such a hideous and brutal action? How strange it is to realise that peace should be sought by seeking war. Yet again I begin to come up against the morality of such action and the choices that have to be made. I do not disagree with your comments You also tell me that the US is doing what has to be done to keep the peace but to my mind, fear and suspicion twists men's minds. You also mention the fact that no civilised nation would use such weapons for anything but deterrence. Your words and papers create a ghastly spectre and conjure up many images in my mind. The alternatives you've set out are clear and I wonder at the madness of men. Surely deterrence only prevents a sneak attack in peace time. If tensions mount and war becomes inevitable, the logic becomes flimsy. You've made me sift the causes of peace and war but does the way to peace lie through strength? I am not certain I entirely agree with you.

Can we purge the world from creating further weapons? Are we actively seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely? After decades of dialogue it would seem we can only control them. The agreements reached between the US and Russia are rather cynical regarding the reduction in stockpiles. What difference does it make if 1,000 or 5,000 weapons exist? Surely, how many warheads opposing sides have is immaterial to the point of absurdity. I begin to understand the paradox. They are not a shield are they? In a time of crises they can become a dangerous threat? We should not be talking about strategic arms reduction but complete strategic arms elimination. It is joining with others to not only suppress the spread of nuclear weapons technology but to eliminate such weapons from our armouries completely. Yet the American's actively seek to enhance their nuclear weapons technology to devise greater and more horrific means of killing. I find it confusing. if we want to eliminate such weapons why do we continually seek to enhance their technology?