One does not have to be much of a cynic to doubt his sincerity and

One does not have to be much of a cynic to doubt his sincerity and to suspect him of still hoping for some dramatic realignment of forces which would make the whole of Israel vulnerable.There are plenty of moderate Israelis, and there are also Palestinian moderates, most of whom conceal their true views because of fears for their personal safety. Does anyone believe that he would not still like to wake up one morning to be told that during the night, the Palestinian population of the West Bank had moved across to the east?In recent years, Mr Arafat has more or less said that he now accepts the existence of the state of Israel. It is a wonderful idea, but there is as much chance of it happening as there is of flying pigs forming a guard of honour as the world’s swords are beaten into ploughshares.Far too many people on both sides are addicted to the sword, and are happy to postpone peace-making in the hope that events will move in their direction. If the Palestinians produced a decent leadership, the Israelis would immediately sit down to cut a deal. The false assumption is that Israel is always the best judge of its own security; the unanswered question being what mechanism will bring a Palestinian state into being.The Americans sometimes sound as if they believe that this too could come about through a mixture of spontaneity and democracy. His administration often appears to support Israel, right or wrong. This approach is based on a simple premise: that Israel, an ally menaced by terrorism, is a democracy which must be supportedThat is an understandable reaction, but it makes one false assumption while leaving one question unanswered.

It is certainly better than mouthing platitudes about democracy while Saudi Arabia falls apart.But there is an even bigger challenge than Saudi Arabia: Israel-Palestine Here, President Bush’s position is paradoxical. No previous President has talked so much about the need for a Palestinian state, yet no previous President has seemed so emotionally enthralled to Israel. There may no longer be any middle ground in Saudi Arabia between the endemic weakness of the House of Saud and the threat of the Wahabis, the fundamentalist sect which was the nursery of al-Qa’ida But it is still worth trying. This Prince Ataturk, for he would almost certainly come from within the royal house, could not be a secularist like the great founder of modern Turkey.

But he would need to create a new state, including a sizeable democratic component, while resisting the fanatics.All that should have happened at least 10 years ago, so it may now be too late. But they would not be happy with the outcome.Radical change is necessary in Saudi Arabia, without imperilling stability. In its initial phase, such reform could only be brought about by a strong-willed autocrat who could use the strengths of the existing system in order to help him to defy the De Tocqueville dictum that the most dangerous moment for a previously repressive regime is when it begins to liberalise The Saudis need their own version of Ataturk. That will require them to overcome their reluctance to embroil themselves in nation building.In Iraq this may not be necessary. Though no one knows what will happen in the aftermath of an invasion, it is possible that the Iraqis themselves will work to create a better future. Yet even if Iraq did come right, there would be no reason to suppose that the same factors would operate in Saudi Arabia.

Members of the Bush team occasionally sound as if they would be happy to see Saudi Arabia slide into crisis. In Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria and even Pakistan, it could turn out to be ricin. If the Americans want a new order, they will have to create one. Instead, there is a naive belief in the universal panacea of democracy.