I’m sure I am not the only reader to comment on the 'Palestine: to resist is to exist' piece, March Therapy Today. I will confine myself to a few brief points.

1. A 10-day visit is a short time for getting a good understanding of a situation as complex as Palestinian/Israeli relations. Since the two psychoanalytical psychotherapists did not acknowledge this as a limitation, or make the usual polite disclaimer, I think your editorial should have stated it.

2. The reference to ‘racial exclusivity’ in the last paragraph sounds confused. Palestinians and Jews are from the same race. Amos Oz has written about the natural intimacy exchanged between members of both nations when they meet.

3. In your editorial, you emphasise the importance of hearing about the psychological consequences to children. It would certainly have made a relevant contribution to Therapy Today if the report had focused on this theme. In fact, the psychological consequences to children were given short mention.

4. It would also have been relevant to hear if the psychoanalytical psychotherapists had anything specifically psychoanalytical to contribute to our understanding. The brief reference to Winnicott seems undeveloped and lightweight.

5. In your editorial, you said that usually we hear less about the short and longer-term emotional impact of what has been called the Occupation of Palestine. But surely this cannot be the case. This report could have come straight from the Guardian, where interviews with Palestinians are cited almost daily.

6. Statistics are cited to create a dramatic impression. For example: ‘Since 1967, more than 20,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed in the Occupied Territories and only five per cent had anything to do with security.’ However, no sources have been provided. It seems out of keeping with the usual standard of contributions to Therapy Today to leave statistics to create an impression, without giving a reliable source.

7. The overall impression of the piece is to evoke a negative view of Israel. As a Jew myself, I fully support the freedom to debate important issues, in keeping with the Jewish rabbinical tradition, which faithfully records two sides to every argument. However, that kind of debate is conducted with respect for the view of the other side. No such allowance is made by the writers of this report. They write as if only one side has justification. No doubt the impact of what they were told was overwhelming. Again, it is part of an editor’s role to supply balance where it is missing from a contribution.

This cannot be regarded as a serious contribution to our understanding of the conflict. It surely needed a much stronger introduction in your editorial to explain why you were publishing it, despite its limitations.

Naomi Stadlen
Existential psychotherapist