Arabs must take some responsibility

The current Palestinian government also maintains an attitude towards Israel of negation rather than negotiation. But even if Hamas were one day to miraculously see the diplomatic light, a Middle East peace treaty would do nothing to slake the blood thirsty ardour of al-Qaida. In fact, any such neighbourly arrangement that recognised the existence of a Jewish state would serve to inflame jihadi passions rather than assuage them.

The logical lapses and non sequiturs that cloud the vision of Tony Blair on the Middle East are bad enough. But far worse is the perverse value system from which this proposal has sprung forth.

The practical import of the British prime minister’s proposition is to appease extremist Islam rather than oppose it. His plan would reward the radicals by making Israel pay the price for jihadi fanaticism.

And after sacrificing the vital interests of the Middle East’s sole democracy in the vain pursuit of peace through propitiation, what would be next? Should we surrender the principle of universal suffrage because female participation in the political process enrages jihadis to the point where they bomb our planes and trains? Should we jettison freedom of religious conscience because such liberties offend the totalitarian doctrines that Wahhabi Islam seeks to impose at the business end of a gun?

Rather than sating the ambitions of al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah, concessions by the West will only further whet the boundless appetites of their extremism. By contrast, the mere fact that the jihadis happen to want something should be reason enough for us to ensure they don’t acquire it.

As much as this is a shooting war, the global conflict with Muslim extremism is also a war of competing value systems. And if we vacate the ideological battlefield, we will soon be vanquished on the military battlefield as well.