That is why I was so concerned about the failure of Israel, and of those who care about Israel, to make the argument in Europe. Relying on a single friend seemed to me just too hazardous a political strategy in the long run and Europe was just too important to lose. 

DJ: Do you feel then that now that there is a US President who is still friendly to Israel but also firmly pushing for a two-state solution, that Israel needs to make some major gesture? The top priority of Barack Obama and European leaders, naturally enough, is to solve the Middle East problem, to end the jihad, to end the clash of civilisations. But isn't there a danger that Israel gets a bit lost in all this? 

JS: There are two issues here. The first issue is that Israel has consistently found that gestures backfire. The peace process, culminating in that extraordinary offer by Ehud Barak at Taba in 2001 of 100 per cent of Gaza, 97 per cent of the West Bank, plus border adjustments, plus East Jerusalem as the capital [of a Palestinian state], led directly to the so-called al-Aqsa Intifada and that terrifying wave of suicide bombings throughout 2001 and 2002. The Lebanon withdrawal led to Hizbollah and the Katyushas. The Gaza withdrawal led to Hamas and the Kassam rockets. So every major gesture that Israel has made has been interpreted by the other side as a gesture of weakness, as a victory for terror, and has led to more terror. 

The real issue is: is there a leadership among the Palestinians capable of committing itself to the de jure legitimacy of the state of Israel within any boundaries whatsoever? The entire debate on peace or not, two-state solution or not, has focused on Israel. We've never really listened to the voices among the Palestinians. 

There is an assumption that there are modern Palestinians and extreme Palestinians, Palestinian Authority Palestinians and Hamas Palestinians. The normal Western assumption is that the same spectrum of views can be found within the Palestinians as can be found within the Israelis. But has there been a single credible Palestinian leader who has ever conceded the right of Israel to exist within any boundaries whatsoever? Whether they are the pre-1967 Six-Day War boundaries, the '49 Armistice boundaries, the '47 Partition boundaries, the 1937 Peel Commission boundaries? One may not leave that question off the table until it is answered, because it is the critical variable in all of this. The Israeli public has made clear through its voting record and every conceivable form of public opinion poll, that were genuine peace and a genuine two-state solution on the table, they would make the most momentous sacrifices in order to reach peace. 

The settlement issue was not the issue over which the Camp David and Taba negotiations fell, as everyone who has written about those negotiations has made clear. It was made clear by Bill Clinton and [his chief negotiator] Dennis Ross. There had been controversies over exactly what was said by Ehud Barak, so I took the opportunity when it presented itself to have a long conversation with Ross, and a short but very pointed conversation with Bill Clinton, because I just wanted to hear it from them. Clinton used this extraordinary phrase: "Ehud Barak offered more than I thought he would, and more than I thought he should."

DJ: And these offers have been repeated since, have they not? I mean [Ehud] Olmert again made a similar sort of gesture.