May I comment on the recent statement by Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar that Malaysia has rejected a proposal by Ilan Ben-Dov, Israel's ambassador to Singapore, for a dialogue with Singapore and Indonesia to discuss the Middle East situation.

Albar's statement is a clear contradiction, awkward at best, in that Malaysia on one hand has announced that it is ready to dispatch peacekeepers to the region where professionalism and neutralism of such soldiers are prerequisites, but on the other, refuses the opportunity for a dialogue with Israel, a key player.

It is understandable that given the political and the current fervour, the government's foreign policy on Israel has to be consistent, but foreign policy is often a subjective matter and a dialogue with Israel, even on an ambassadorial level, is another opportunity for Malaysia to engage the politics of diplomacy, the first and sometimes only card out of a warring situation.

Malaysia showed its mettle as an intermediary in the Mindanao insurgency not by encouraging gunmanship, but by shrewd diplomacy and has in a similar vein, made overtures to Thailand to help deal with its escalating insurgency in the south.

It should also be noted that Britain avoided a probable violent independence struggle in Malaya not by all-out soldiering, but by cajoling and subtle politicking which included a whispered promise to key players to surrender the country.

Much can be achieved when parties engage in face-to-face dialogues not necessarily as friends, but as human beings. Such dialogues have in the past proved to be an effective and powerful response to conflict.

Although the variables of a Middle-East negotiation is far more complex, Malaysia should not hesitate if given the opportunity to engage Israel diplomatically as a diplomatic outcome where principal parties are and remain satisfied, would inevitably ensure a lasting agreement.