PEACE NOW OR NEVER?

I have to disagree with Daniel Finkelstein on this one: "The truth is that there will only be peace in Israel once we have won the war on terror."

Assuming the war on terror is going to last a generation, if not longer, does that mean we do nothing to try to find a settlement? The Israeli conflict may not be the core issue, but it’s clearly one of them, as Al Qaeda expert Peter Bergen has observed. It’s true that any attempt at bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians together will never placate the jihadis - nothing will. But, trite as this may sound, we could be paying a lot more attention to winning over mainstream Muslim opinion. I say that as someone who thought the Israelis were absolutely justified in going into Lebanon last time.

Meanwhile, I notice that Melanie Phillips has been slapping down ex-chancellor Norman Lamont:

Yes, the Arabs do see the creation of Israel as an act of western colonialism. So what? The creation of the entire Middle East was an act of western colonialism. Does anyone suggest that Syria or Jordan should now not be recognised?

I never thought I’d be in the position of siding with Mr Je-ne-regrette-rien, but I'm with him on this particular issue. Yes, I think it really is possible to support Israel, to believe that Arafat and his lackeys acted in bad faith for years, yet still to accept that the Arabs have a genuine grievance that needs to be addressed. If we’re going to fight a war on terror without taking that point into account we may never win the war of ideas.

One final thought. Last year, in the Atlantic, the magazine's books editor, Benjamin Schwarz, wrote a gloomy essay [subscriber-only] about the Jewish state's prospects: Will Israel Live to 100? I love Schwarz’s work; he’s always the first person I turn to when I open the magazine. Now, in the article he expressed his doubt that it would ever be possible for the Arabs and the Jews - "each with reasonable claims to the same piece of earth" - to reach a compromise. Perhaps he’s right. And he added this:

In conversations with Israelis on the left and the (moderate) right in academe, the military, the government, and the security services, I've been struck by their grim declarations that they as a people aren't going anywhere, but also by their foreboding about the country their children will live in. Most of all, though, I've been struck by the frequency with which these men and women—patriots all—have wistfully said, "We should have taken Uganda" (which Britain offered to the Zionist leadership in 1903).

At this point I half-expected Schwarz to indulge in a some ritual throat-clearing, just to remind everyone that there’s something slightly incongruous about the idea of the British, or any other great power, deciding they had the right to parcel out someone else’s land. Yet Schwarz passes over the comment in silence. Therein lies the problem.