You mentioned you stayed in an Arab settlement. Was that Druze, Christian Arab, southern nomadic or Islamic Palestinian. If Islamic Palistinian was it Fatah, Hamas, Al Aqsa Brigade? What were their opinions toward Israel?

I spent a considerable amount of time in the west bank but most of it was with settlers and Christian Arabs. All my attempts visit the other villages were blocked by Israeli patrols. If you somehow managed to get past the army to Ramalla let me know how you did it.

You still don't address my original point. Our American press plays up the Palestinian attacks while quietly ignoring the encroachment of Palestinian land and subjugation of their people. They are not savages and they deserve far more than what the Israelis are treating them to.

Israel has three choices:

1) Quit the West Bank and leave the Palestinians to form a government with our without negotiations.

2) Absorb the West Bank into Israel and grant all Arabs equal voting rights. Within two decades Jews will be in the minority and the Jewish identity of Israel will cease to exist.

3) Absorb the West Bank and set up a system of apartheid to protect the Jewish identity of Israel by denying Arabs equal voting rights.

Which option do any of you think Israel should follow?

Isn't this the same administration that creates its own reality? Look's like Gonzo may be slowly fading from the "real" world.

Good article and thanks, again. But you must be suckers for letters forum punishment.

Let the flame wars begin.

Page 2, your tag line for the jpforum is not properly closed. It covers two paragraphs.

The most interesting insight into this administration may be Kyle Sampson's e-mail saying that since they have this new law allowing USA appointments without Senate approval they should use it.

Somewhere out there is an e-mail, likely from Karl Rove, stating that "since we've got all this new power from PATRIOT Act and a Republican Congress for decades why not abuse it?"

Perhaps its hiding in that 18 day gap in e-mails.

If the hard anti-war faction could garner enough votes to stop funding this year there would likely be no Pelosi compromise bill. It's not like she is out stumping for staying the course until 'victory' is assured.

Truth is the hard anti-war faction can't get a majority any more than the GOP pro-war faction. But unlike the GOP, the Democratic left can force gridlock. If they do they will win on principle, but their "victory" will be as hollow as the one promised by George Bush. The result of inaction will mean more of the same. Bush and the GOP minority wins and the MSM crows about the Democrat's typical disarray and incompetence. The left has to suck it up and support Pelosi's bill. If they want to get to the promised land they are going have to start taking a step first. It won't come to them.

The Senate should put that apology on a large plaque and place just behind the committee members for all future witnesses to see and read before they start their testimony.

August 2008 may seem a long way away, but it is more than just a step. Imagine if Congress in 1968, four years into Vietnam, had passed such a meager measure demanding the end to involvment by August 1970. The Vietnam Memorial would be only half as large as it is.