I was struck today by the disturbing parallels between sentiments expressed by a Tibetan social worker and Osama bin Laden. Here's the social worker:

Tibetan youth are frustrated," the social worker says. She talks about her 21-day hunger strike in front of the United Nations office in New York, meant to raise awareness about the Tibetans' plight. "It didn't help," she says bitterly. The first TV cameras arrived only after 12 days. "But when a bomb explodes or a house goes up in flames," she says, "the UN is right there. The world only reacts to violence. Just like in Kosovo."

And here's Bin Laden, in his most recent tape:

Palestine cannot be retaken by negotiations and dialogue, but with fire and iron... Our enemies did not take over Palestinian through negotiations, but rather, by force."

Of course, the social worker isn't advocating violence, but merely commenting on how it seems to be the only way to get attention. And Bin Laden isn't calling for Palestinian autonomy, but the destruction of Israel (nor is he saying anything that Gamal Abdel Nasser didn't say 40 years ago). Both quotes nonetheless underline why it's so important to make negotiations and dialogue work. Because when they fail, those who say that violence is the answer will begin to win the argument.