Sir

I am not sure if the following extract from your editorial should be interpreted as being more anti American or more anti Israel. Talking about the American administration it says:
 

 "Will it rush to install an administration of exiles and other favorites, which will then be pressed to adopt policies most Iraqis would likely reject -- such as the immediate recognition of Israel?"
 

 Either way it expresses sentiments that do not sit well in an American newspaper. What could be better than an Arab regime anywhere in the area coming in that would recognise Israel and sit down and talk peace.  It is the breakthrough many of us are wiating for.

At the moment the only obstacle to peace is the Palestinian leadership. Ariel Sharon has again, today, offered to make moves towards peace by dismantling some settlements.  He has been willing to talk peace throughout the sorry mess the Intifada has got the area into.  And peace was on the table in 2000 when Yasser Arafat chose violence.

Now all Sharon needs is a partner.  But given the Palestinian behaviour during the Iraq war, sending people  to  fight against the coalition with the aim of killing US and UK soldiers, calling on Iraq to bomb Tel Aviv, and their constant demonstrations, burning of US and UK flags and effigies of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair it seems unlikely that the Palestinian authority is really serious about peace.  While they continue to call for Israel's  destruction and a one state solution which does not have room for a Jewish State alongside, I can't say I'm optimistic.

And with newspapers like yours sending out all the wrong messages to the Palestinians, it can only make things worse.  

Currently the Palestinians are mourning the fall of Iraq, which will also mean the end of Saddam's obscene financial payments to the families of homicide bombers. Yet again, as in the last Gulf War, they have backed the wrong side. Now it is up to anyone who has influence, including the media to reinforce the fact that their only hope for the future is to get back to talking to the Israelis instead of killing them.

J.W.

Sir  

When reading a quality newspaper such as yours it is a reasonable expectation that one should be able to rely on  quoted statistics.

It was therefore with shock and amazement that I read the alleged figures of casualties in the current Intifada in the Middle East quoted by an UNWRA representative , Peter Hansen.

They are so grossly incorrect that it makes me seriously question any claims that UNWRA might make regarding what undoubtedly is a tragic situation in the area.

His figure of Israeli casualties is seriously short of the truth and the inflated figure he gives of Palestinian casualties fails to take into account that at least 262 Palestinians have been killed by their own people, many of them accused of collaborating with the Israelis in their search for peace.  In addition over 900 Palestians were either terrorists, homicide bombers or armed men.  In sharp contrast, the vast majority of the more than 700 Israeli casualties (not Mr. Hansen's flawed figure of 352) were deliberately targetted civilians, many of them women and children

The quoted figures in the Guardian are so seriously flawed, with Mr. Hansen's claimed figure being less than half of the actual well documented total of Israeli casualties, that it casts doubt on his whole article and on UNWRA's overall credibility.

As for the sad plight of the Palestinians whom he claims are living on less than $2 a day, perhaps he should address his criticism at Arafat and ask him as the 6th richest man in the world according to Forbes, if he is prepared to share some of his $300 million with his starving people.

And at the same time maybe Arafat should be asked how much of the millions of international aid money the Palestinian Authority has received has gone to form part of this enormous personal fortune.

At the very least I hope the Guardian will have the good grace to print accurate figures and explanatory background to the real figures, rather than those in Hansen's fantasy world.

To the BBC newsonline copy writers

I simply cannot believe that you chose to attach this totally irrelevant paragraph at the end of your story about the devastating carnage caused by two homicide bombers in Tel Aviv:

 "Earlier on Sunday, Israel carried out a test launch of its Arrow missile interceptors as part of its preparations for a potential US-led war in Iraq".

Just what has this got to do with such a sad and mindless terrorist attack which has murdered at least 19 innocent civilian passers by and injured probably in excess of 100.
Any claim the BBC makes to be unbiased is totally lacking in credibility when you do something like this.  what was the point you were trying to make. and if you had to make such a fatuous link would it not have been more appropriate to recognise that the purpose of interceptors is not war, but defence against attack that is highly likely to be aimed at Israel when Iraq will use this as an excuse to target her.
I am simply appalled by your insensitivity and clear agenda at a time such as this. 
What a change it would be if just for once the BBC could report a terrorist attack on Israel straight instead of tagging on irrelevant red herrings.  I can't imagine the same kind of irrelevance being used had the attacks happened in London or Manchester.