STRANGER: Thank you for having Mr. Sanders provide coverage concerning the unfortunate death of Ms. Corrie ["Was This House Worth Her Life?" Eli Sanders, April 3]. The article appears to take a pro-Palestinian point of view without offering an appreciation of the problems faced by the Israeli citizens who are the victims of a sustained terrorist campaign.

Interviews with members of Ms. Corrie's group ISM are clearly anti-Israeli and appear to ignore the realities of the situation on the ground. ISM has never made any effort to protect Israel's citizens from the terrorist attacks they face on a regular basis. Instead they insert themselves into situations where Israel is attempting to protect its citizens from perpetrators of current or future terrorist atrocities. Perhaps, when the ISM recognizes that Israelis have been the victims of terrorists dedicated to destroying their state and eliminating them from the region, they will be able to truly engage in the principled action of calling upon the Palestinian officials to eliminate their use of terror and indiscriminate violence as a mechanism of political policy.

Alan R. Breen, Ph.D., ABPN, via e-mail

STRANGER: As a member of Rachel Corrie's community in Olympia, I was deeply saddened by the article regarding her death in the Gaza Strip. The fear and paranoia that so liberally flavored the piece is an immense part of what activists like Rachel are struggling against.

While the self-identified anarchists you interviewed may not have met your standards of critical thought, they were Rachel's peers, and they cared for her. They are members of a tragically small group of people in the world living their convictions of justice. If you are looking for an ideology that lacks contradiction, please let me know when you find one. I doubt that the hordes of armchair generals watching Operation Bomb Iraq to Shit here in the United States will be able to help you in this regard.

Kathryn McDonald, via e-mail

STRANGER: The cover of last week's edition identifies Rachel Corrie as an "accidental martyr." While this headline neatly pairs the two extremes of debate surrounding the circumstances of our friend's death, it, like the article itself, misses the larger point: Rachel was killed because our society has failed to put itself where she ultimately stood alone. There is some kind of sick calculus in asking "Was This House Worth Her Life?" She did not die to protect a house from demolition. No, Rachel died simply because the United States refuses to let the world intervene.

Eli Sanders traveled to Gaza with many questions he considered important. To be sure, judging by the amount of words he spends ridiculing the "half-baked" anarchism of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activists, he found the answers he was looking for. Sadly, to us, and as Eli points out, to the Palestinians as well, engaging in ideological debate while tanks patrol the streets is bringing "famine to a starving people." ISM activists may use "evasive abstractions and simplistic platitudes" when speaking about subjects irrelevant to their cause, but they are not there for a seminar. They are there because UN peacekeepers are not.

It seems like in Eli's worldview we should be paralyzed from action until we have some well-formed ideological manifesto in hand. This is the privilege of the comfortable. There are many who would have us endlessly debate the ethics of intervention, but while the debate lopes on, the settlements and the violence expand.

As we write this, word comes across the wire that Brian Avery, a 24-year-old ISM activist from New Mexico, has been shot in the face by the Israeli occupation forces. He was wearing a red florescent vest with a reflective white cross and was standing with his arms raised above his head in the middle of a Jenin street. His lower jaw has been severely damaged, but he will live. Rachel would have turned 24 on April 10. The Israeli army reports that the bulldozer driver who killed her is already back on the job.

The question Eli fails to ask, which must be answered, is why are nine young people in Rafah doing the job of the United Nations?

The essential facts are that innocent civilians are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Israeli military is protected from the Fourth Geneva Convention by the veto power of the United States. Thirty-five times since 1972 the United States has cast a lone security council vote opposing resolutions condemning Israel or calling for an international peacekeeping force. Most recently (Dec 15 2001), the United States opposed a resolution for the introduction of UN observers.

Rachel was brave enough to confront a humanitarian crisis that the rest of us ignore. We refuse to let her death be the end of our involvement. With our friends, we are currently organizing a call for a UN investigation of her death, along with the placement of international monitors in Palestine. If you'd like to help, contact us at JusticeforRachel@OMJP.org.

Colin Reese, Kristi Schaefer,

& Chad Austinson

ELI SANDERS RESPONDS: Almost no one believes that this conflict can be fairly resolved without the application of international pressure. One hopes that the American "road map" for peace, which President Bush has said will be published soon, will push both parties toward a just and final settlement.

Regarding privilege, and my worldview: It does seem that before a person travels to the other side of the earth to intervene as a human shield in a long-running, complicated, and dangerous conflict, such a person should "have some well-formed ideological manifesto in hand." How else can a foreign human shield expect to be taken seriously?

Also, and most importantly, to be able to articulate an ideology that stands up to scrutiny is not "the privilege of the comfortable." The Palestinians, who are neither privileged nor comfortable, have been doing this for years. If anything, people who are privileged and comfortable have more of a responsibility to develop a coherent ideology before taking action, especially when taking action in a land that is not theirs.

STRANGER: Your recent article about Ladyfest was a sore piece of gossip-column disappointment ["Trouble in DIY Paradise," Hannah Levin, March 27]. How such a body of work qualifies as music journalism is mystifying. A lot of people worked their collective asses off to make this event happen, putting aside their political, sexual, and personal differences to do so. Many of the women interviewed for the article felt they were narrowly quoted to support the scope of the article, not shedding full light on their opinions.

It was great that all of the shows were highlighted in the Stranger Suggests, except the only information given about any of the bands playing Ladyfest were reviews of other shows some of those bands happened to be playing in town that week. Many, many bands played for little or nothing to support the nonprofit organizations that Ladyfest will be donating its proceeds to, the Noel House and New Beginnings. Fascinations with other organizations' internal problems aside, not even bothering to mention the beneficiaries was a sad slap in the face to the people who worked so hard because of their common desire to do something beneficial for the community.

April Goettle, Ladyfest Seattle

HANNAH LEVIN RESPONDS: The purpose of that article was to examine why punk-minded DIY organizations run into problems planning events--and offer commentary on overcoming those obstacles. If anything, it illuminated how hard people must work to "put aside their political, sexual, and personal differences to do so." As a feminist and former promoter who's been part of the planning process for several DIY events (as well as a panelist at Olympia's inaugural Ladyfest), I'm painfully aware of how difficult that process can be, which is why I interviewed six individuals involved and strove to document as many perspectives as possible.

In addition to your arrogance in assuming to speak for the "many women interviewed" who supposedly felt they were narrowly quoted, your scan of our Ladyfest coverage must have been done with one eye shut. The last three paragraphs of my article focused on the strengths of the festival's programming, praising its diversity and specifically recommending three bands, two workshops, and two arts events. And finally, I would have been happy to mention the festival's beneficiaries by name, but both the Ladyfest website and event press release referred to them only as "women's charities."