The article from the New York Times by Katrin Bennhold concerning the uproar at the Davos, Switzerland International World Economic Forum:

Color photo above the article of an outraged man, with a caption reading:

This story's headline reads:

GAZA TALK IGNITES TEMPERS AT DAVOS

Tim McGirk in an article from Jerusalem states the following:

"The assault on Gaza, no matter how it ends, will not ease the Jewish state's existential anxiety.  Peace, not war is its only hope."

Rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel continued as day after day of this war went on.  Eventually, the troops from Israel surrounded Gaza.  Tim McGirk asked the burning question in his article:

"How far must they advance into the deadly labyrinth of slums and refugee camps, where Hamas militants await with booby trapped houses and snipers?  With each passing day, Israel's war against Hamas grows riskier and more punishing, with the gains appearing to diminish compared to the spiraling costs -- to Israel's moral stature, to the lives of Palestinian civilians and to the world's hope that an ancient conflict can ever be resolved."

As someone who wrote a book, "Struggle for the Holy Land,"  on the Middle East encompassing the long histories of Arabs and Jews I recognized from the outset the imperative need for international leadership to be exercised through constructive diplomacy.

When I recently sent a manuscript to a British publisher with the reputation of tackling tough and controversial international issues, and that prided itself on being progressive, the editor sent me an e-mail declaring that it took him 32 pages to decide that I had concluded that Arabs and Jews were equally at fault for the conflict while he believed that the root problem lay at the doorstep of the Israelis.

I promptly e-mailed and took him over the route of my first 32 pages.  I pointed out that I had not found "fault" with either group and that this was not the objective and my effort, which was to address the long history of each people extending back some 3,500 years, focusing on points on common along with differences.  The objective was to develop understanding and point the way toward diplomatic conflict resolution.

My response to the editor's criticism, which pointed out areas that he had mentioned, and from which he had drawn an erroneous conclusion about my work, was greeted by silence.  This was not surprising.  Too many believe that all writers approaching the Middle East should ultimately praise one group and denounce the other.