"I'm as qualified to pass judgement on the Israeli occupation as I was to pass judgement on Jim Crow in the US south, Apartheid in South Africa, and on the Nazis for their crimes against humanity. If you think that standing up for human rights is propaganda, then you are hardly the humanitarian I had taken you to be. You need to learn a hell of a lot more than you currently do about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands before you will be in a position to tell me what I am saying is propaganda."

as usual, I am concerned with reasoned argument, even as I am concerned with the rights and suffering of ALL people. What I see (on both sides of the issue, not just yours, Carol) is a "choosing of sides", then arguments constructed to justify almost anything done by the chosen side. Definitions are streched, comparisons made, questions are mis-represented, unwarrented assumptions are built into statements and conclusions drawn that are ONLY valid IF one accepts those presuppositions, definitions and comparisons. Nor do I appreciate having my statement twisted to say that I CALLED your position 'propaganda'. I was referring to the verbal similarities.

I KNOW that the conditions that most Palestinians are forced to live in is unfair and demeaning and does not offer them reasonable opportunities to live meaningful lives....this hurts and saddens me. Neither do I think that Hamas and Hezbolah have reasonable approaches to address those inequities.

I simply do not see Jim Crow, Nazis, and Apartheid as examples of what is happening in the Middle East. Nor do I accept at face value that there was any clearly defined "Palestinian lands".

You say that 'occupation IS the provocation'....but IF one accepts that it is clearly 'occupation', why is wanton murder the proper resopnse? Why is not a Martin Luther King or a Mahatma Gandhi non-violent campaign a better idea? Do you just adjust your violence tolerant threshold to define ANYTHING done by the 'oppressed' as justified?

A number of posts ago, I referred to the Post editorial in which it was claimed that the very existence of Israel was the issue....and as I read your posts, you have come within a whisker of saying just that. "Occupation IS the provocation"

What you don't realize, because I am not willing to 'choose sides' and defend either set of arguments, is that I actually SEE the point that it might have been a mistake in 1947 to create Israel at all! At that point the Jews were in 'roughly' the same position that the Palestinians are now, and they had a LOT of sympathy. They clearly needed support and some sort of reparations for centuries of persecution. But why a COUNTRY carved into lands that many people had ethnic & religious claims to?

Now we have, 60 years later, a practical problem. It is a problem much like many others in the history of the world.....it was DONE...like the 'occupation' of the USA, to the detriment of the Native Americans, the 'occupation' of Mexico by Cortez, to the detriment of the Aztecs, or the creation of Northern Ireland. What do we DO to redress the injuries?

Hamas, Hezbolah and several countries have stated policies that the situation will not be 'right' until Israel ceases to exist. Therefore, they state that they WILL continue attacks, no matter whether Israel 'withdraws', sits tight or expands. Now, whether they or you) like it or not, Israel IS a country, recognized by the UN, no matter how they got there...and AS a country, one should not be surprised to see them make the case for defending themselves against attack. If you simply, in all cases, define their defense as agression, there is nowhere to go but where it is going....the Gingham dog & Calico cat syndrome. All that can be done, without a full-scale war involving Iran, Syria, Lebanon...and perhaps the Saudis! is to snipe and hurt and make Israeli life awkward. Wonderful scenario! A full scale war there affects the entire world! And you KNOW sides will be chosen based on issues other than exalted ideas of 'right'.

The Israelis got where they are by sympathy, some adroit maneuvering, and some good luck...the Palestinians need to learn from that and use tactics other than mangled bodies. There have been short periods of calm in the area in the last 10-15 years, but in my reading of the news, it has been supporters of the Palestinian cause who felt that Israel was not being cooperative enough (and they may be right) and who therefore decided to resume atrocities to provoke more conflict.

I do NOT see Israel saying "sure...we'll just disband as a country"...and Israel has (right now) the firepower to cause more pain than they suffer. It is frustrasting to watch an Iranian bred & funded agitator force Lebanon into direct conflict with Israel...and equally frustrating to watch Israel overreact and use one or two soldiers as an excuse to escalate the situation.

I repeat...BOTH sides are being stupid and unreasonable.....and boy, they sure are provoking some unreasonable arguments as folks set their jaws and defend one side or another!