As both a Jew and a British citizen I could be seen as a victim - twice over! On the hand I am told that the world outside Israel is rife with antisemitism and, on the other, the talkbackers here are falling over themselves to be more 'anglophobic' than everyone else. We have the profound argument of the post which focused on William Hague's lack of hair - impressive (I hope Bennett does not escape his analytical skills). Elsewhere, we have a post which (more or less) correctly pointed to the immigration of Angles and Saxon into Britain as conferring legitimacy on their citizenship, so why not the Jews as far as Palestine is concerned? Indeed, and why not the Palestinian Arabs ('ersatz' if you like)?

"Everyone who cares about what Mr. Hague thinks, raise their hand. Umm -- let's see -- zero hands raised." Ah, Sarah B, this is what happens when you stare in the mirror for too long. Everyone agrees with you.

I am not a defender of the Britain and its empire. So, we can get that out of the way. Next, you have an interesting use of the concept of occupation. According to common dictionary definitions of 'occupation', arguably, when the West Bank was under Jordanian rule it was occupied by a foreign power. After 1967, it was ruled by a different power, Israel, although you would dispute that Israel was 'foreign'. However, clearly you are under the impression that the non-Jewish residents of the West Bank constitute a 'power' - and a foreign one to boot. Now those residents do not see it like that. They think they are a people who have lived there for hundreds of years. How deluded can you get?

Why is Jordan always ignored as being part of the two state solution. Both Israel and Jordan were formed in 1948, and both were part of the original Palestine mandate. One Jewish state was formed and one Arab state. Jordan than annexed Judea and Samaria (which only Britain recognized) and then lost this land in a war it waged on Israel. There you have it, two states for two people. Peace in our time.