Tony Blair arrived in Washington yesterday with party supporters, partisan opponents and pundits alike exhorting him to be brave and to “distance himself” from his host, George W. Bush. The Prime Minister has made it plain, instead, that while he wants to shift the diplomatic process “up a gear” and has petitioned Israel to take additional steps to minimise civilian casualties, he does not intend to break with the White House on this issue. Mr Blair will, therefore, doubtless be subject to further criticism on his return to Britain. These are attacks that he should, and will, ignore.

The claim that it is a lack of personal or political courage that prevents the Prime Minister from rebuking the President is risible. There would be no simpler means of courting short-term popularity at home than in ostentatiously chiding the US Administration. It would doubtless make a section of the electorate here feel warmer about Mr Blair and ease the consciences of certain Cabinet colleagues. It is, after all, a path that has been taken by others — notably France, Germany under Gerhard Schröder, Spain and, lately, Italy. And if Mr Blair were to follow it, he would be as irrelevant in Washington policy circles as those other actors.

It is not, however, mere calculation that explains the allegedly odd Blair-Bush relationship. Although they are drawn from different party camps, some of the distinctions between the Gladstonian liberalism espoused by Mr Blair and the (often exaggerated) neoconservatism of Mr Bush are in style rather than substance. Both men believe that foreign policy should be about the promotion of values and not simply the narrow pursuit of interests. Ironically, in the light of the glib “ poodle” charge made of the Prime Minister, it is Mr Bush who, after the atrocities of September 11, 2001, moved into terrain such as “nation building” that was first staked out by Mr Blair, not vice versa.

That shared instinct has been displayed in this Middle East crisis. Mr Blair and Mr Bush agree that in a contest between a democracy (Israel) and a wild theocratic terrorist organisation (Hezbollah) backed by rogue states (Syria and Iran), it would be bizarre for other democracies to be morally neutral. Each can understand the dilemma of a fellow elected politician (Ehud Olmert) and suspect that, if they were him, they might be adopting similar policies. Both are, though, convinced that it should be possible for Israel to defend itself while avoiding the level of civilian casualties that has occurred.

In reality, this suffering has already triggered the change in tempo that Mr Blair is pressing for. Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, has made it clear that she will return to the Middle East imminently, and intense efforts are being made to assemble an armed force of outsiders to be deployed in the area of the Israel-Lebanon border.

Peace depends on that initiative succeeding. For certain nations loudly to demand an immediate ceasefire and then to refuse to offer troops to ensure that any such ceasefire can endure is the height of hypocrisy. It is the politics of posturing, designed to assuage electors at home, but of no use at all to those in Lebanon or Israel. Mr Blair has decided to stick with his principles and in so doing be a participant in the Washington policy debate, not shouting loudly and aimlessly from the sidelines. It is the better place for him and Britain to be located.