KEV MCSTRAVICK (HAS, August 4) questioned why Hamas continued to pursue an armed struggle against Israel when it could follow a more passive policy of adapting to the current situation. He said he had his opinion but would welcome others.

On that same day, in reply, the first contributor to The Northern Echo’s website posted a lucid and well argued view that there would be no peace in the Middle East until Israel complies with international law and ends human rights abuses. The writer went on to say that they could start by ending the illegal six-year siege of Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank Whatever one’s persuasion this qualifies as an opinion and one can be persuaded or offer an alternative view.

The immediate retort from Kev Macka, who I presume to be Kev McStravick, comments “Uh! It’s that horrid little boy again”. Why on earth welcome opinions if you are not prepared to engage in rational debate?

I read widely and diversely and consequently find myself swayed one way or the other regarding the roots of this seemingly intractable dispute, but to approach the conflict with a closed mind condemns one to a state of intolerance and ignorance.

VJ Connor, Bishop Auckland.