Yugo, you misunderstand me. I am not an enemy of Israel.Though I think the founding of the State of Israel was neither necessary nor just, the past cannot be changed, and the reponsibility of the present is to start where we are and create the best future we can.

Craig Murray's vision of a unitary bi-national state is a noble one, but I do not think it achievable. I recognise the importance to Jewish Israelis and many other Jews world wide of the continued existance of Israel as a state with a predominantly Jewish identity.

That could be achieved by the kind of Israel I have described, and I would fully support a two-state solution on those lines. The Palestinians would accept it, the Arab states would accept it, and the United Nations would accept it. Would you accept it? If not, why not?

I do not know anything specific about the expulsions of Jews from Baghdad, but certainly I care about anyone who has been brutally expelled from their homeland. I think it would be a wonderful thing if, as part of a general settlement between Israel and the Arab nations, some were able to return.

I am not Craig Murray, but here is my answer.

I would not call the hypothetical Jewish person of your question a Zionist, at least in a perjorative sense, if

(1) He recognised that the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, and subsequent events, involved a great injustice to the existing non-Jewish population of the area;

(2) Was willing for the State of Israel to make restitution for this injustice, as far as is practicable, by recognising a right of return for some Palestinian refugees.

(3) Was willing for the State of Israel to truly become a liberal democracy by giving equal rights and status to all religious, secular and ethnic groups amongst its citizens;

(4) Was willing for the State of Israel to negotiate secure borders and a treaty of friendship, between itself and a neighbouring Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza: those borders to be based on the pre-1967 Green Line with small mutually agreed adjustments, as specified in numerous UN Security Council resolutions.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Just reading your speech brought tears to my eyes.

May God bless you, and Bradley, and the new America that is beginning to arise.

Good for him for saying it, at least. I don't know if he is saying what he believes, or what he knows is the popular view. If he backtracks under Israeli lobby pressure, we will know he is a liar and a coward.

It is misleading to say the Liberal Democrats are a right-wing breakaway from the Labour Party. The Liberals existed long before the Labour Party: Churchill was a Liberal before he was a Conservative. The Social Democrats were a breakaway from Labour in the days when Labour was very left-wing, but eventually merged with the Liberals. In recent history the Liberal Democrats have been a centrist party but with some radical ideas, strong on civil liberties, supporters of the European Union and internationalism, and opposed to the Iraq war from the start.

Here are a few points from the Liberal Democrat manifesto (http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto_your_world.aspx)

"Liberal Democrats will put British values of fairness and the rule of law
back at the heart of our foreign policy. British people used to be proud of
what our country stood for. But Britain’s reputation has been damaged by
unscrupulous arms deals with dictators, allegations of involvement in torture,
and of course the disastrous and illegal invasion of Iraq. We will also give
greater support to conflict prevention – which saves money and saves lives."

Support multilateral nuclear disarmament, rule out like-for-like Trident replacement
Critical supporters of the Afghan mission
Support the establishment of an International Arms Trade Treaty
Stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons by diplomatic engagement and sanctions but oppose military action
Pressure Israel and Egypt to end Gaza blockade

Far from a thorough-going anti-war platform, but better than the other two main parties.