Has Tony Blair lost his nerve? Americans and Israelis may be wondering whether Mr. Blair has suddenly gone soft on Islamism. His speech in Los Angeles on Tuesday called for “a complete renaissance of our strategy” in the war on terror. In what his aides made clear was a “challenge” to President Bush, he called on the West to “bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine.” Though he criticized media bias against Israel, the prime minister said he understood Muslims who “see only the bombs and the brutality of war, and sent from Israel.”

Well, I can understand why yesterday’s New York Sun editorial called this speech a “whinge.” It was. If it’s right for the British and Americans to fight year-long campaigns against Islamists thousands of miles away in Iraq and Afghanistan, why is Israel only allowed a brief window of opportunity to defend itself against the direct threat of Hezbollah missiles and raids?

Before we rush to judgement on Mr. Blair, however, let’s recall his lonely struggle, not only in Europe but in his own government. He has been clear from the start that sole responsibility for starting the conflict in Lebanon rests with Hezbollah. He has also been clear that Iran and Syria are responsible for Hezbollah. Mr. Blair has not joined the ranks of the appeasers; he hasn’t even gone as far as Condoleezza Rice in calling for a ceasefire in “days, not weeks.” Instead, he recognizes that Israel has every right to go on hitting Hezbollah until there is a realistic alternative.

If you want to hear a real appeaser, compare Mr. Blair’s with the statement of the French foreign minister on Monday in Beirut. Iran, declared Philippe Douste-Blazy, is “a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region.” That is a bit like saying in 1940 that Nazi Germany was playing a “stabilizing role” in Europe — which, come to think of it, is just the kind of thing that Marshal Pétain did say. Plus ça change.

But if the French government is sounding more like a reincarnation of Vichy by the day, why is Mr. Blair suddenly sounding rather less Churchillian than we are accustomed to expect? Why the whinge?

The answer is that, by his support for Israel and refusal to call for a premature ceasefire, Mr. Blair has put his political survival on the line.

There is no shortage of appeasers in Britain. Last week, at least three members of the Cabinet — including Environment Secretary, David Milliband, the young man whom Mr. Blair has been grooming as a future leader — spoke against Israel, while others passed notes to the prime minister indicating their dissent.

And while the prime minister has been in America for most of the past week, back home the man who for five years had been his foreign secretary and is now seething with resentment decided to go public.

Jack Straw, who was recently demoted to the far less prestigious but still powerful position of leader of the House of Commons, had bided his time. He chose a moment when Mr. Blair was vulnerable. Mr. Straw attacked Israel — and indirectly Mr. Blair too — for “destabilizing the already fragile Lebanese nation,” and denounced Israel’s “disproportionate action” for “escalating an already dangerous situation.”

I can guess what Mr. Bush would say if the Republican floor leader in the House of Representatives were to attack him for supporting Israel’s right of self-defence while he was on a diplomatic mission to Europe. But the president of America can afford to rise above such things, especially when he knows that the American people supports him — as, on Israel, it does.

Mr. Blair, though, is in a minority. The British public wants a ceasefire now and parrots the line that Israel’s action is “disproportionate.” Given the genuinely disproportionate depiction of the conflict by the BBC as a war of aggression by Israel against Lebanese children, this is not surprising. But Mr. Blair needs a majority in the Commons — and the man he has entrusted to deliver it is none other than Mr. Straw.

No less significant than what Mr. Straw said is the audience to whom he said it. Blackburn, the town he represents in Parliament, is now overwhelmingly Muslim. And when the Islamists protest, Mr. Straw gets the sheikhs. Not for him the statesmanship of Edmund Burke, who in 1774 told the electors of Bristol: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Where Israel is concerned, Mr. Straw appears to hold no opinions of his own, apart from those that emanate from the mosques of Lancashire. In this he is typical of not only his own party, but Tories and Liberal Democrats, too, who are eager to woo the Muslim vote.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the Foreign Office is playing its old game of undermining support for Israel and America. Last week Margaret Beckett, Mr. Straw’s weak successor, failed to persuade Mr. Blair that he should tell Mr. Bush to pressure Israel into a ceasefire. This week, Foreign Office sources leaked the story.

Why are these diplomats so bad at diplomacy? The Foreign Office has always been run by Arabists. However anti-Semitic, they were mandarins, not ideologues.

Now the lunatics have taken over the asylum. The chief adviser on Islamic affairs is not only a British Muslim but a hard-line Islamist. Mockbul Ali, who runs the “Engaging with the Islamic World Group” at the Foreign Office, is only 26. All he had done before entering the diplomatic service was to be the political editor of an Islamist student newspaper which advocated suicide bombing. Yet Mr. Ali is already controlling the British government’s policy towards Islamic groups at home and abroad. For example, he was responsible for a recent visit to Britain by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. In leaked emails, Mr. Ali described Sheikh Qaradawi — an extremist apologist for terrorism who is banned from America — as “a highly respected Islamic scholar.”

Under the circumstances, Mr. Blair is doing pretty well to resist the appeasers. He knows his authority faces a crisis. He could even fall. Mr. Straw’s revenge on Mr. Blair recalls that of Geoffrey Howe on Margaret Thatcher, which finally brought her down. The prime minister may have to cancel his summer vacation.

How, then, should Mr. Blair regain the initiative? He should drop all attempts to appease Muslim opinion. Instead, he should appeal directly to the British people. He needs to explain that Israel right now is responding with incomparably more consideration for civilians in Lebanon than Britain did towards German civilians when Hitler bombarded London, latterly with V2 rockets very like Hezbollah’s. Nobody said it was “disproportionate” even to flatten entire German cities. It does not occur to the British that Israel is enduring its own Blitz right now. If Mr. Blair doesn’t tell them, who will?