IT IS A CASE of the Blair that didn’t bark. Why hasn’t the Prime Minister publicly condemned the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza? Most British — and many Israeli — citizens are horrified when they see the devastation wreaked by Israeli bombings. There were 80 such raids in the early hours of yesterday alone. By late afternoon, some 327 civilians had died in Lebanon, compared with 34 Israelis. Go figure, as they say.

If this is a proportionate response, I’m a satsuma. Even the most hardline supporters of Israel, who justifiably point to the country’s right to defend itself against attacks from Hezbollah, must by now have come to realise that the “overkill” will have the opposite of its desired effect. For every member of Hezbollah who dies, another ten will be recruited to its cause. The world will be full of sympathy for the benighted residents of Lebanon who had thought, at last, that their country had secured itself a stable, peaceful democratic future. Half a million of them have been forced from their homes because two Israeli soldiers were taken hostage. That hardly looks like justice.

Meanwhile, a forgotten war is taking place in Gaza, overshadowed by the bigger one in Lebanon. Since Israel began its hostilities there, three weeks ago, some 110 Palestinians have lost their lives and countless more have been injured, while just one Israeli has died. The civilian infrastructure has been trashed. And all this just as the Hamas Government and the Fatah party had at last agreed on a formula for peace negotiations. What chance of peace now?

Mr Blair, by his silence, seems to be endorsing the US line: allow Israel at least another week to take action against Hezbollah before any calls for a ceasefire are made. He would doubtless argue that, unless he is supportive of the Israelis publicly, he will have no traction with them privately. Yet there are two big problems with this approach.

First, the UK has little traction with Israel anyway. Mr Blair had a frank private conversation with the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, when he visited Britain last month. It doesn’t seem to have done much good.

Secondly, and more importantly, Mr Blair’s silence is sending a strong message to the world’s — and particularly Britain’s — Muslim community. By failing to condemn Israel’s overreaction, he is allying himself with those acts. What more powerful ammunition could there be for the radicalisers of Britain’s young Muslims? “Your Government doesn’t care about you and your fellow believers. You need to take action to defend them in this noble cause.”

It is a terrifying prospect. Mr Blair is endangering our nation’s internal security by his reluctance to move a millimetre from the US stance. Even if he is engaging in private diplomacy with Israel, it is not without serious costs to the rest of us. Long after he leaves government, we may be paying the price.

At yesterday’s Cabinet meeting, there was some disquiet about the official line. Some ministers are wondering whether it was wise to move Jack Straw from the Foreign Office at the reshuffle. For, had he stayed, the British response to the Middle East crisis might have been more nuanced.

Mr Blair and Mr Straw used to play a clever triangulating game. The Prime Minister would sound more pro-Israeli, the Foreign Secretary more pro-Arab. They used the same tactic with Iran. This positively suited the US sometimes, as it allowed Mr Straw to follow avenues that were not open to Condoleezza Rice.

Margaret Beckett, though, is not experienced enough either to make her voice heard internationally or to strike out on her own, as Mr Straw used to. It is a great lost opportunity. Instead, yesterday, she just parroted the US line, refusing to condemn Israel despite being urged to do so by members on all sides of the House.

The danger of the current situation is that Gaza and southern Lebanon risk becoming another Iraq, with their populations radicalised and their governments unable to restrain the terrorists even if they wanted to. The conflict could even bring together Hamas and Hezbollah, who currently have little in common apart from their opposition to Israel. Hamas is made up of Sunni Muslims; Hezbollah of Shias. But united, they would make a formidably dangerous grouping on Israel’s doorstep.

Mr Blair should be saying all this to Mr Olmert, on the record. Britain could be acting as Israel’s critical friend, representing not just the outside world’s fears for the region, but also the half of Israel’s population who believe that their country has been going too far.

He could point out that the “eye for an eye” doctrine of the Old Testament was not a vengeful prescription but was designed precisely to restrict vengeance to that which was proportionate. The verse did not ordain ten eyes for one eye, which is the ratio the Israelis are currently pursuing.

The War on Terror is too easy a pretext for Israel to hide behind. It does not give free licence for a state to bombard the innocent citizens of another in the hope that a few terrorists might be killed in the process. Imagine if we had bombed Dublin in the same way, with more than 300 deaths in a week and half a million people displaced. That would surely have been seen as a war crime.

Mr Blair has moved too swiftly from defending Israel’s right to exist to supporting Israel right or wrong. It is bad for the Middle East and it is dangerous for Britain. He ought to know better.

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden