Regarding your editorial "Jerusalem's nightmare" (Oct. 18), what is so difficult about making the distinction between murderous aggression and serious self-defense?
What is so seductive about accepting frustration as a justification for murder? And how is believing in the intransigence of Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu more sane than acknowledging the Palestinian Authority's rejection of every Israeli peace offer?
In what way is a democracy that accords verifiable civil rights to all its citizens apartheid? What's so morally superior about a Palestinian Authority that claims the right to be "Judenrein?"
How does misshaping children's minds with bigotry and the glorification of death enable one to hold on to power? How does one forge an agreement of mutual respect when one party swears to eliminate the other? How does raising lawlessness to the level of statehood magically create peace?
Rosemary Warschawski, Baltimore