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.