When the pictures pour in from the Middle East of children cut down by bullets and soldiers lynched by enraged mobs, we ask ourselves "Why? Why are these people dying? How should I react to this?"

Pained by earlier scenes of violence, I started asking myself those questions and set about trying to answer them. To a son of Chinese immigrants raised in suburban Boston, Israel was some country in the Middle East with a terrorism problem, Palestine something found only on outdated maps.

It's amazing what you learn if you complement your news diet of CNN and The New York Times with sources from other parts of the world--which is exactly what I began to do, routinely consulting Israeli, Palestinian and European media.

After my own share of reading and soul-searching, I now believe that although neither side is fully innocent or blameworthy, it is the Israeli government which bears the greater share of responsibility for the "Palestinian problem." This is an opinion I came to, not one that I was raised with.

Substantiating this opinion requires pointing out the grossly unequal realities that are frequently obscured in the American media.

First, there is the sheer imbalance of power. U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright speaks of the Palestinians "laying siege" to Israel, but it is Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships that are surrounding and firing on communities in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, not the other way around.

Then there is the imbalance of terror. Israelis live under the fear of potential terrorist attack, and that is awful. But fear of being killed and actually being killed by an occupying army are two different things, and it is not a coincidence that nearly all of the recent casualties are Palestinian.

And then there are the arguments in support of current Israeli government actions.

One argument is to blame the victim. A number of speakers at an Oct. 23 rally sponsored by Harvard Students for Israel (HSI) accused the Palestinians of purposely sending their youth into the line of fire for propaganda purposes. As if Palestinians were animals who would sacrifice their children today for newspaper photos that will be forgotten tomorrow. As if teenagers protesting in their own neighbourhoods against violent occupation somehow forced Israel to use helicopter gunships against them. And even if this transparently absurd and inhumane argument were true, would that not simply underscore the desperation imposed by generations lived under occupation in dirty, overcrowded refugee camps?

A second argument is Israel's right to "self-defense." Of course Israel has the right to exist and defend itself. But defend against what? Nearly all of the so-called "violence in Israel" has actually taken place in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, not in Israel. Israel is thankfully not in danger of being wiped out any time soon. Anyone who thinks that rock-throwing protesters in the Occupied Territories threaten Israel's existence has a very low opinion of the Israeli army's capabilities.

A third argument is that the Palestinians irrationally rejected a "generous" peace offer. Everyone wants peace, but an unjust peace is both unfair and impractical.

The Palestinian state proposed by Israel was a truncated one, cut into several disjointed pieces and dependent on Israel for water, electricity and jobs. The plan on the table was not for a state, but for a glorified Indian reservation.

To some, my opinions make me "biased." "Bias" and "objectivity" are the two most damaging words in discussions of how we think about and discuss violence and justice. Let's face it: Objectivity is something nobody is ever believed to possess and bias is something eveybody else always seem to have.

Vaguely concerned Harvard students who express sympathy while hurriedly rushing by rallies and vigils are also victims of this tendency to erase inequality in the name of "objectivity."

The organizers of the HSI rally "deplored all deaths" but mentioned by name only two slain Israeli soldiers, erasing the fact that nearly all of those killed have been Palestinian civilians. The Harvard Society of Arab Students (SAS) maintained a silent, dignified presence near the rally. Several of SAS' most active members are Jews; numerous Jews and Israelis stood with SAS in making an explicit point to display the names of Palestinians, Israeli civilians and the two Israeli soldiers killed while under detention.

Yet many vaguely concerned Harvard students are still frustrated by what appears to be mindless squabbling between different student groups unable to get along or are tempted to throw their up hands in despair and incomprehension at the violence.

Skepticism is sometimes a substitute for apathy and vagueness a cover for ignorance. When lives are being taken, it is not enough to simply hide behind the banner of neutrality or seek the warmth of a group hug for world peace. When one side is more powerful than the other, neutrality means complicity with the strong.

Does this mean that compromise is impossible, that everyone must take sides and never climb down? Of course not. If the line between opinion and dogma disappears, then there is no hope. And without hope, there is no point in having opinions.

But we still can and still must take moral positions, nuanced yet clear, open-minded yet firm. Walking away, whether in confusion or disgust, has its own moral price, and that price is too high. One cannot take a position on the fence when it is made of razor wire.

Darryl Li '01 is a social studies concentrator in Quincy House and assisted in the organization of the Society of Arab Students vigils.