In a recent debate in the House of Lords, a retired clergyman suggested that verses from the Quran be read at the coronation of the next monarch as a gesture of “inclusive hospitality” toward British Muslims. Such an idea, however well-intentioned, is absurd for many reasons, argues Douglas Murray, not least that British Muslims are unlikely to reciprocate:

[I]ncluding passages from the Quran in the next coronation of a monarch is a mistake because of the old problem of reciprocity. . . . It is worth asking why British Muslims should have their scripture represented in the coronation of the new monarch, when many, in their mosques, will not even pray for the well-being of that monarch. In synagogues in the UK, British Jews every week have a prayer in their services for the long life and happiness of the queen. It is a moving and heartfelt moment, not to mention a clear signal given to any doubters that Jews in Britain are utterly loyal to the state.

So why should British mosques not have some similar prayer? Whenever I have mooted this to Muslim friends in Britain, they have always dismissed the idea as if it were an example of a willful provocation on my part even to raise the issue. The underlying theme is that everyone knows this would be impossible. But why? If Muslims in Britain want to show that they are loyal to Britain, why not take a leaf out of the Jews’ book and have a prayer in every Friday service up and down the land for the queen as head of state, head of the Church of England, and head of the armed forces? It would be a wonderful sign.

Yesterday, Israel’s Channel 12 reported that Israeli representatives have been involved in secret talks, brokered by the United Arab Emirates, with their Syrian counterparts about the potential establishment of diplomatic relations between their countries. Even more surprisingly, on Wednesday an Israeli reporter spoke with a senior official from Syria’s information ministry, Ali al-Rifai. The prospect of a member of the Syrian government, or even a private citizen, giving an on-the-record interview to an Israeli journalist was simply unthinkable under the old regime. What’s more, his message was that Damascus seeks peace with other countries in the region, Israel included.

These developments alone should make Israelis sanguine about Donald Trump’s overtures to Syria’s new rulers. Yet the interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa’s jihadist resumé, his connections with Turkey and Qatar, and brutal attacks on minorities by forces aligned with, or part of, his regime remain reasons for skepticism. While recognizing these concerns, Noah Rothman nonetheless makes the case for optimism:

The old Syrian regime was an incubator and exporter of terrorism, as well as an Iranian vassal state. The Assad regime trained, funded, and introduced terrorists into Iraq intent on killing American soldiers. It hosted Iranian terrorist proxies as well as the Russian military and its mercenary cutouts. It was contemptuous of U.S.-backed proscriptions on the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield, necessitating American military intervention—an unavoidable outcome, clearly, given Barack Obama’s desperate efforts to avoid it. It incubated Islamic State as a counterweight against the Western-oriented rebel groups vying to tear that regime down, going so far as to purchase its own oil from the nascent Islamist group.

The Assad regime was an enemy of the United States. The Sharaa regime could yet be a friend to America. . . . Insofar as geopolitics is a zero-sum game, taking Syria off the board for Russia and Iran and adding it to the collection of Western assets would be a triumph. At the very least, it’s worth a shot. Trump deserves credit for taking it.