I'm always worried when people take "sides" in a conflict that is too multi-faceted to fit on a Fox "News" sound-bite. Let me make a few very brief points:

1) There is no "Palestine". The refugees in the West Bank/Gaza have had multiple opportunities to create a legal state and have rejected every overture. From 1947 to refusing to continue the ceasefire two weeks ago, they preferred war to peace.

2) It is not a "Israel-Palestinian conflict". Egypt has the same problem with the same range of people, and are handling the situation even worse. Sudan is currently fighting the same range of people over the same issues. The same conflict has infected the entire area, from Jordan and Lebanon to Morocco and Algeria.

3) Supporting a democracy over a gang who rejects legal oversight is hardly "taking sides". We are a world of law, and in this conflict, only Israel is answerable to the world court. When the West Bank/Gaza has a free press, a democratically elected government and allows international observers, we can begin to talk about it as a "side".

I don't support the current military action by Israel, but I understand it. I certainly don't support Hamas and their terrorist missile attacks. Given a choice, I back the democracy, even as I try to influence their anger. Most people don't even want the choice, they just want to ignore the whole thing. I don't respect that.

I'm aware, as I said in the original comment, that the conflict is multi-faceted. Indeed, even West Bank/Gaza have different spokespeople. And no, I'm not worried, one way or the other, what is said on Fox. If they happen to agree with me, it's an accident and probably for the wrong reasons.

Nonetheless, you haven't addressed my main point: Israel is a legally recognized state, answerable to the world community (such as you) and Hamas (which turns down ceasefires) is not. Israel makes and honors treaties. Hamas/Hezbollah cannot and does not speak for everyone they claim to.

I can see the standard range of misspelled and poorly thought-out reactions starting to flow here, so I'll duck out of this particular thread. I'm saddened when people fight other's battles from a highly charged emotional distance.

there is virtually no debate over whether the U.S. should continue to play such an active, one-sided role in this dispute

There was virtually no debate in the US when Nixon halted the 1976 war when the Israeli's were winning, when Carter forged the Camp David Accords, or when Clinton got Begin and Arafat to shake hands on a deal. For decades, through Democratic and Republican administrations, the US has played a leading role in forging peace in the region.

Some people have lived up to their word. Egypt and Jordan have kept their side of the bargain, and have come off the better for it.

But the Fatah, Hezbollah, Hamas et al have done nothing but break their word or refuse to sign carefully negotiated peace agreements. The current fighting is due in large part because Hamas went out of its way to refuse to continue a ceasefire.

I, for one, am tired of being lied to and shot at. This is not, Glenn, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, for I have many issues with how Israel is conducting their response. But please, don't make the same mistake from the other side. It is in America's interest to make peace, and to condemn those who reject it. In an area with very few issues that are clear cut, we as a nation must side with the countries that are willing to negotiate, such as Egypt and Israel.

Hamas refused to continue the ceasefire. The people of Gaza/West Bank knew exactly what they wanted, which was to fire missiles and continue attacking Israel. And they knew retaliation was going to happen. They relied on comments like many expressed here, full of fury at the side defending itself. As an American, I support the lone democracy in the region. As a person who wants peace, I'm tired of thugs pretending to be a legitimate political force. If the radicals refuse to negotiate, all civilized people should push them into negotiations or punish them when they go on murderous sprees.

I sympathize greatly with the Israeli people, surrounded by enemies and judged more harshly than those who have vowed to wipe them off the map.

I'm not at all surprised that the Bush administration considers itself above the law. I'm more disturbed that the Democrats didn't go after the criminals when they took over Congress in 2006. Obama's administration may be "post-partisan" but they still have to clean up the mess left by Bush, and that means going after law-breakers. It's a matter of values.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and willful disdain of the law even less so.

One of the less-explored stories: Why was the original count so biased toward Coleman? True, it was a small fraction of the three million cast and human error is most likely.

But it does seem suspicious that every time in recent memory there's a recount, the Republican was leading and a scrupulous, bi-partisan examination of the ballots finds that the Democrat gained.

As usual, the press is asking the wrong questions. Even the Star Tribune isn't talking about the voter repression suit filed by SoS Ritchie against the Minnesota Majority. The question is: How did Norm Coleman almost steal the election.