Our planet progresses, if at all, through decency and dignity. We advance, if at all, through trade, shared knowledge and co-operation. International collaboration requires mutual political understanding. Give and take. Diplomacy, in short.

Right now, our world’s political and diplomatic structures are palpably falling short. Parts of the planet experience persistent poverty. Our economies have yet to recover post pandemic. We talk endlessly of climate change but the solutions seem stuck, difficult to implement. And we are unwilling witnesses to brutal conflict.

In Ukraine. And in the Middle East – where every diplomatic endeavour is thwarted. Little wonder that, when the topic of Israel, Gaza and Lebanon was discussed by the BBC Question Time panel in Dundee on Thursday, there was a discernible atmosphere of dismay, of hopelessness.

The panel and the audience tried. They talked of an arms embargo, of other political pressure, of potential solutions. But the tone was one of whimpering in the face of enduring conflict. They might as well have cited Wilfred Owen, the World War I poet, who exclaimed: “What made fatuous sunbeams toil to break earth’s sleep at all.”

Read more by Brian Taylor

So is diplomacy completely useless in the Middle East? For now, perhaps. But it too must endure. We must try, endlessly, to exert what influence we have in the pursuit of peace. On the Palestinian side, that largely means other Islamic countries in the region.

Qatar in particular has striven for compromise. They, along with Saudi Arabia and UAE, were among the signatories of a US-led endeavour to secure a 21-day ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Understandably, the Gulf states fear attacks upon their oil installations – but they also crave a settlement for humanitarian reasons, in defence of cowering communities.

And what of Israel? One senior diplomatic insider told me that only the US has any clout in that regard – and that America’s influence is presently dissipated by the vagaries of the Presidential election.

Certainly, President Biden has seemed less than assured in responding to events. The US has equivocated: for example, talking up the prospects of that 21-day ceasefire beyond the true position. President Biden said he was “fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel” while lodging caveats such as arguing against any attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.

All perhaps understandable. This conflict is deep-rooted and diverse. Starting with the Hamas attack a year ago, the response has now spread to include each of Israel’s enemies in the region. Little wonder that the US response varies. The ground shifts each day. Would it be different under Donald Trump? He says that he would solve the Ukraine conflict in a day. Kyiv fears that would mean capitulation to Moscow.

Smoke billows during Israeli airstrikes on Beirut's southern suburbs Smoke billows during Israeli airstrikes on Beirut's southern suburbs (Image: free) And the Middle East? No time scale. No clear plan. Mr Trump says: “You have to have that ended and I would think we are getting close to a point where maybe it can end pretty soon.” Not exactly firm. Not exactly words to make the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, consider and change.

Indeed, he may be more inclined to pay attention to domestic polling which suggests his popularity has risen recently, having been badly dented in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attack. And so, even as he went to the UN for talks, he stressed that he had ordered his military commanders to act with full force.

Still, US support for the continued security of Israel is “unwavering”, according to the Vice-President Kamala Harris. In pursuit of the top job, she says her country will take whatever action is necessary. But is there still a slight note of equivocation accompanying such firm declarations?

Politically, election candidates have to calculate where public opinion lies, whether there is disquiet over Israel’s actions – and the involvement of US forces.

And the UK? We have relative clout as permanent members of the UN Security Council. Our forces stood ready to help counter the Iranian missile attacks on Israel. Plus history. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 which promised a home for the Jewish people. The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 which attended the ending of the British Mandate of Palestine.

Sir Keir Starmer says the UK stands with Israel, recognising the right to self-defence. But he too has to lend an ear to pro-Palestinian views among his own supporters.

The issue also pursued John Swinney this week. The First Minister was challenged by Patrick Harvie of the Greens to urge a ceasefire, to object to arms sales to Israel – and, specifically, to cut grants to companies involved in producing such weapons.

Mr Swinney said that he completely understood the “basis and substance” of Mr Harvie’s arguments. But he noted that, while acknowledging the “moral and ethical” questions, the Scottish Government could not act beyond the limits of the law.

Read more

So where now for politics and diplomacy? Israel wants hostages returned. Citizens in Gaza and Lebanon want an end to attacks, an end to demands to evacuate. Let us return to the text of the statement urging a 21-day truce.

It noted that it was “time to conclude a diplomatic settlement” but added: “Diplomacy cannot succeed amid an escalation of this conflict.”

Which is, frankly, where we are now. Confronting an escalating conflict. The longer-term diplomatic solution must be a compromise. A two-state solution which meets the needs of the Israeli and Palestinian people. Easy to say. All too easy for it to trip glibly off political tongues. But ferociously difficult to achieve.

Difficult when Israel is pursuing its enemies on multiple fronts simultaneously, insisting that such action is justified by the Hamas attack a year ago, by the hostages and by the imperatives of security. Difficult when the most entrenched enemies of Israel fundamentally reject the concept of two states. When they want one state, with Israel removed.

Right now, diplomacy seems thwarted. Pointless, even. Who is listening? But remember too that, only this week, we commemorated German reunification, including at an event in Edinburgh. We recalled the shattering of the Berlin Wall after decades of biting Cold War tension. We can, we must, persist with pressure for a solution in the Middle East.

Perhaps, though, with lowered expectations.

Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC