Her task was almost impossible: write a poem for a historic occasion that's not too sappy, too high-minded, or just plain terrible to an audience who is there to hear someone else and most of whom probably know nothing about poetry and like it even less. The result was surprisingly well done. A concrete poem read clearly and forcefully. I'm not sure what to make of a lot of the comments here, except to note that you just can't please some people.

Israeli apologists like Freidman operate in the moral universe of not very nice six-year olds: I had to hit him because he hit me first, he asked for it, I taught him a lesson, he made me do it, it's all his fault, etc. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot of space between adults thinking this way and adults with powerful weapons committing unspeakable acts (or abetting them.) There's a reason we teach our children to think and behave more responsibly and compassionately. But if you believe, as the Israelis and their cheerleaders seem to, that your ethnicity is more valuable and authentically human than other people, than you can justify almost anything.

I've always enjoyed Mr. Keillor's work, but he's seriously off his game here. Of course, Bush is an idiot. But otherwise, this piece reads like it was dashed off in an airport on his way back from that giant swimming pool in Florida. Are there any editors at Salon?

Since my tax dollars are part of that $3 billion the U.S. throws at Israel every year, and since the U.S. is still nominally a place where free speech is protected, you had better get used to the idea of people like me participating in the debate about how and whether Israel deserves American support. If you don't like the sound of a free society, too bad. I suppose that's why you live in a country that openly discriminates on the basis of religion, race, and national origin.

I never said that the Hamas Charter was irrelevant. What I did say (several times) was that neither the author of the article we are supposedly responding too nor any of the letters I've read today express any love for Hamas. Kamiya, in fact, is explicitly condemning (rightly in my opinion) of Hamas for being anti-Semitic and violent. Therefore, it is not necessary to rub it in our faces how crappy Hamas is. You can criticize Israel without automatically supporting its enemies.

Proportionality certainly is NOT moot under international law and the Geneva Conventions. It is a very clearly defined and understood concept endorsed by all civilized nations. I really don't know where Israeli apologists like you get off dismissing ratified legal concepts of the highest importance as if they were nothing more than a pesky fly. It's in the same league as Dick Cheney's description of torture as a no-brainer.

"Actually, quite a few people are claiming that Palestinians are blameless victims."

Who? Kamiya? I don't think so. What he does say is: "I hold no brief for Hamas. Its use of terror is morally repellent, and its charter is filled with anti-Semitism. "

"People seem to have short memories about why the Israelis have subjected the Palestinians to such harsh living conditions. It was to prevent Palestinians from bringing bombs into Israel to blow up buses and restaurants."

Was that before or after they were expelled from their land and put in refugee camps?

You keep on throwing them out there. When one ceases to work, you lob another. I read Kamiya's article, and have read many of the letters posted here. Not one can be construed as seeing Hammas as just hunky-dory. How about engaging with what's actually being argued, rather than what's in your own head.

You ask: "Are you aware of the faults of the Palestinians. It takes two to fight a war. Why is there no criticism of Hamas for refusing to respect the cease fires they have agreed to in the past? Why is there no criticism of them for using schools, mosques, and hospitals as storage facilities for weapons and as lauching grounds for attacks? Why is the criticism so one-sided?"

I don't actually think anyone here is saying that the Palestinians are faultless. But the undeniable reality is that, right at this moment, Israel is mounting an air and ground attack using one of the world's most sophisticated and well-funded militaries in a densely populated area filled with defenseless civilians who have no place to go. In this kind of David and Goliath situation, most people are going to feel sympathy for the more powerless side.

I've been puzzling over your demand that any American who criticizes Israel be willing to give their land to a Native American, or else be deemed a shameless hypocrite. Virtually no American seriously believes that there is a possibility that Israelis are going to vacate all their land and hand it back to the Palestinians, or would believe this a just solution at this point (this being the equivalent of your suggestion that fair-minded Americans give their property up to the Native Americans). Since no one is actually calling for the Israelis to do the equivalent, your argument is nothing more than a red herring meant to distract us from what is actually happening in Gaza at this moment. People like myself who criticize Israel's latest attack on a people it has systematically blockaded, starved, and kept in permanent refugee status for three generations are not asking Israel to dismantle itself and send its Jewish citizens back to wherever they or their relatives came from. We are asking that Israel seriously seek to find a just, workable solution for everyone.