Thanks for your funny and articulate writing, and your insights about the situation on the street in Israel. As for this post, though, I must say that first of all, it's hard to tell what the context of these comments you cite in the BBC interview actually were -- they seem very odd and exceedingly provocative out of context (and from what I know of BBC, rather out of their norm). (Do you know if there's a transcript of the whole interview, by the way?) I'm a bit puzzled by your expression of outrage at the claim that this is an uneven conflict, though. How else would one describe it? This is not a "war" between two armies: it is an Occupation by a state with the 4th largest military in the world, of a people who don't have an army. This does not mean that the Occupied people -- the Palestinians -- are angels and the Occupiers -- the Israelis -- are devils. But it does mean that Israel, as the only state power operating in this conflict (since Palestinians don't have a state, and nor can they properly build one when they're under Occupation and siege) has certain responsibilities under international law -- most notably the Geneva convention. Does this imbalance "justify" suicide bombings? No, I'd have to agree that it doesn't. But nor do I see any justification for bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure with the most advanced weaponry in the world. And if Israel is indeed to be considered a mature state actor, and a democracy, than it should behave with more restraint than its enemies because it has the *power* to do so. Instead, it is acting like a blindfolded madman swinging wildly with a deadly weapon; or, to be more precise, like a state that's bent on expanding its borders deep into (if not clear across) the West Bank, which makes it difficult to take any of its claims to being interested in "peace" seriously.