I'm astounded by your reply to me back on page 32. Not to mention your taunting reply to Gator90 on the same page.

If I had to truly characterize what you wrote to me, I'd say that not only were you were being defensive and patronizing, but you deliberately misrepresented what I wrote.

First off, my "desire," WAS NOT "to have an in-depth analysis of Israel, Israel and Israel," as you put it. What utter nonsense. To try and portray that as the aim of my letter was extremely disingenuous. I simply stated the fact that besides Israel and the United States (and the Palestinians, of course) you have written exactly zero meaningful words about other countries who have vested interests in the region.

The truth is you completely sidestepped my points and questions by asking an inane question of your own (which I'll get to in a minute). But first, I think I can safely assume that since you didn't refute my statement about your 10,000 words without any significant mention of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Egypt, that you ducked my subject and questions. What else should I gather from your non-reply reply?

Simply put, when you write, it's as if the Iranians, et al, don't exist in the current Israeli-Palestinian narrative. Or, as it's become abundantly clear, they don't exist in YOUR narrative.

Well, I've got news for you, Glenn: they do exist. And they play major behind-the-scenes roles in this disaster. And you owe your readers some semblance of objective analysis if you're going to assume the mantle of serious journalism on this issue. FOX sure as hell doesn't mean it when they say, "fair and balanced," but I expect if from journalists such as yourself.

And that's the point: you're a journalist, not a propagandist. And it seems you're veering off into the realm of fact-free doctrine. Your posting of the link to that video (no matter your weak disclaimers and correction) was an egregious misdeed, one that flies in the face of journalistic principles and integrity.

It's pretty simple as far as the video goes: if you couldn't "vouch for its authenticity," you should never have posted the link. And seeing as it took me all of 30 seconds to find a cite debunking said video, it tells everyone here that you obviously weren't too interested in its accuracy. You simply wanted the shock value. And that, I'm sorry to say, puts you in the role of propagandist.

As to your absurd question about my attachments to Israel, it's shocking (and insulting) that you would even ask such a non sequitur. If someone has cultural, emotional or religious ties to Jews or Israel, does that make their comments on this issue any less relevant? Seriously, it smacks of the worst dual-loyalty horseshit peddled by extremists on the far right and far left.

But far be it for me to stoop to your level by not answering the question. Yes, I'm Jewish. And I do see Israel as something special. What does that tell you, Glenn? I answered your question, you answer mine. But if you're going to tell me that makes me emotionally attached to this issue, I'll spare you the rhetoric... you're correct, I am. But it's not as cut and dried as you and many others would like it to be. That's because I feel the pain and anguish on both sides. I can support Israel because I'm Jewish while sometimes disagreeing with her policies. And I can support a Palestinian state. I know you know that of many people here who write to you. But the insinuation in your question about my religious background just reeks. The logical extension of that is that I should have a Star of David placed next to my signature. Or a Muslim Palestinian should have the Star and Crescent.

On the whole, I have to say that for you to so blithely dismiss people's critiques of your work is very troubling. Aside from my anger about the video, I was honestly hoping to see a wider view from you on this whole issue. Based on your reply to me, looks as if that won't be forthcoming. Maybe, among other issues, you could have discussed the 400,000 Palestinians expelled from Kuwait after the Gulf War. And I mean that seriously, it's not just a ploy or throwaway line. But I guess that discussion won't be happening.

In the end, where you begin losing people like me is through narrow, myopic pieces such as the ones you've been posting lately. And now you've pretty much totally lost me by posting that video. That tells me you're biased to the point of irrelevance on this issue. And really, I'm saddened to have that proven in such spectacular fashion.

It is this smug and narcissistic attitude which allows today's liberalz to always feel so damned correct about all things.

Glen knows what's best.

He is the world's leading critic of common sense.

It's always Israel he wants to blame

And bullshit is his game.

It is this smug and narcissistic attitude which allows today's liberalz to always feel so damned correct about all things.

Glen knows what's best.

He is the world's leading critic of common sense.

It's always Israel he wants to blame

And bullshit is his game.

Regarding your question: I believe that a one-state solution is the utopian solution, and I would always favor that. A country that basically mirrors the overall goal of the U.S. (a mixing bowl) in the middle east with Israelis and Palestinians living together and treating one another as equals and living harmoniously.

Practically speaking, many feel that is unobtainable. The Israelis are determined to maintain a Jewish majority and that is the only reason they vacated Gaza. And they have legitimate fear that the historic injustices against the Palestinians make it impossible to now live with them. That the hatred from the Palestinian side is too strong and long to overcome.

But consider this: In America we enslaved African Americans for nearly three centuries. They were then segregated, marginalized, and legally discriminated against.

But we did what was RIGHT, not what was practical, and we just elected the first African American to the President of the United States.

Anything is possible.