The events in the USA yesterday were terrible - for the USA, for all
humanity (we never know where it will happen next, and has been
pointed out, we will all have to undergo more intrusive and stringent
securioty measures now). It was also terrible for the
Islam/Palestinian cause; I remember when visiting Iran on a tour in
1998 that, despite the very obvious and quasi-official anti USA
statements everywhere (e.g. a gold lettered 'Down With USA' sign
in Shiraz's biggest hotel). American tourists could probably feel
safer than in parts of London or (until yesterday) New York. The
answer was, according to at least one Iranian, 'the quarrel Iran has
with the USA is with the government, not the people' (many
iranians felt they had just cause for such a quarrel - the USA had
supported the Shah, whose secret police had been very active in
Iran against dissidents (tho' probably the same set up goes on now
against the opposite dissidents), Iran had lost a passenger airline
in very dubious circumstances, and USA helicopters had been on a
somewhat disastrous attempted resuce mission of the USA
embassy hostages before some helicopters crashed in the eastern
Iranian desert (apparently the US military had not accounted for the
fact that deserts are dusty and helicopter engines don't like dust
and grit much) and the rest retreated to Pakistan. The crash site is
today preserved as a sort of shrine/tourist attraction and is on what
anmounts to the 'tourist tail' in Iran.
So the indiscrimminate killing of civilians of any nationality in the
goal of pursuing a war, Iraqi, American, Vietnamese, Afghan, etc,
has to be condemned. (likely not all of yesterday's casualties were
USA citizens, many may have been from Middle Eastern countries)
As it is, the casualty list here, almost certainly in 5 figures, is the
biggest ever in one incident and will rightly be condemned - it will
probably set back the cause of whoever did it by years in terms of
world support.

Can the USA, and the rest of us learn from this carnage? The USA
is in the interesting position of standing with one leg either side of a
slowly widening greopolitical chasm. One leg is on the Israeli side,
due to WW2, Israel being set up in 1948, and the major Jewish
migration to the USA in the early 20th century. The other leg is in
the Arab world, as that is where the bulk of the world's oil is, and
the USA can't survive without foriegn oil, can it? What happens to
such a person when the chasm widens too much? Yesterday it
widened a couple of inches more.
Maybe we could learn 3 lessons from this.
1) An even handed and firm and as fair as possible settlement
must be imposed by the USA, which has alone the power to do
this, on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. In practice this may well
mean a solution that neither side wants - the physical partitioning
into Israeli and Plaestinian areas. The Palestinians will abhor this
as it recognises the right of Israel to exist in what will be the
majority of the present territory of the State of Israel. The Israelis
will abhor it as putting up a defensible wall between themselves
and the Palestinians will mean pulling back out of some of the
settlements in the mostly-Palestinian districts, and as they will see
it. 'abandoning ' large areas of the historical area of Israel to
Palestinian control, in effect a de facto State of Palestine within
Israel. Yet if someone doesn't step in and forcibly and semi-
permanently separate the 2 sides, what future is there for either
side? Both sides feel 'under seige' - Israel as surrounded by Arab
states, the Palestinians as surrounded by Israelis.
2) the USA is far too dependent on foreign oil. Even in more
peaceful times, every time OPEC manages to raise the price of oil
by a dollar or two, down goes the USA economy, thousands more
join the dole queue, and not just in the USA. Maybe Kyoto had
something going for it after all, Mr Bush. Think about that as you
drive to the office, maybe because there is not yet a viable public
transport alternative. Think about that as you sit in your suit and
tie, on a hot July day, and turn up the air conditioning so as not to
be really sweaty. Think about it as you jet off on holiday, or to
some fairly unneccessary business meeting, spewing out yet more
CO2 into the overladen atmosphere. Think about it as you eat your
ready meal from the supermarket, whose constituents have
probably travelled thousands of miles in the back of various lorries
before you drove five miles way past the local shops to buy
it.(maybe you also drove past a local closed down abbatoir or
bakery, or a small farm+shop that no longer grows much except
local tourist traffic).
3) Following on from 2), all industrialised countries need to be more
energy secure, that is to be as self sufficient in energy, from
whatever source it comes from, or to source their energy from that
which an ally can produce. For example, the likes of Switzerland
and Japan will never be energy self sufficient, but rather than
depending on oil, they could start importing other forms of energy,
e.g. electric derived from solar power from (say) Spain and
Morrocco, renenwable power derived from biomass from Brazil or
south east asia, etc etc. Drastic changes would be needed in
transport; like cut backs on private car use and a shift to public
transport - this can more easily be electric-fuelled, which in turn
can come from many more sources than petrol, which must come
from oil. Or a major boost into R & D for viable and practical
electric cars.
My sympathies go out to all those and their families who were
killled or injured in the USA yesterday - my fears go out to all those
who will be killed and injured in the future if the only product of
yesterday's slaughter is a series of tit for tat raids worldwide.

Hillary Shaw, P/G Geography, University of Leeds
Hillary Shaw, P/G Geography, University of Leeds