The real news about the meeting last week between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu was eclipsed by the administration’s once again denouncing Israel’s settlement building, this time involving 2,610 housing units in East Jerusalem.
Yet what seems more significant was that the prime minister, in the words of The New York Times, “raised the tantalizing prospect that a new Arab alliance could resuscitate Israel’s moribund peace talks with the Palestinians.”
The Times was referring to the prime minister’s reiteration, during his visit with the president, of something he had made note of during his speech earlier in the week to the UN General Assembly:
“In an Oval Office meeting that spoke to the rapidly shifting landscape in the Middle East and the enduring realities of the peace process, Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu discussed how the militant group, Islamic State, was reshaping the region, with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states lining up with Israel against a common foe.”
What seems to be in play is the possibility of an extra dividend in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
In retrospect, bilateral negotiations seem the height of illogic. Given the vitality of Hamas, Israel can hardly rely on the commitments, even if sincere, of PA President Mahmoud Abbas for its security. According to a poll released last week, if presidential elections were held now in the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh would eclipse Mr. Abbas. And when one factors in the enduring enmity for Israel on the part of Hizbullah, Iran, and the Islamic State, the idea that a real peace agreement could emerge from Israel and the Palestinian Authority meeting around a conference table is clearly quite absurd.
The major Arab countries have in the past proposed that they would guarantee a peace agreement were Israel to agree to major concessions that they outlined. This came to naught, and rightly so. Those countries had little to gain in terms of their own security interests and were essentially fronting for the Palestinians. Nor do we think that this is what Mr. Netanyahu has in mind. What he sounds like is a political realist trying to tap into the dynamics of current Middle East realities – realities that may result in a profound recalculation of national interests by a number of Arab countries.
Above all, as the preeminent military power in the Middle East, Israel has much to offer an Arab world that appears increasingly desperate in the face of the rampaging Islamic State and of Islamic fundamentalism in general.
While Israel cannot blindly throw in its lot with its traditional enemies, there might come a point where Israel’s Arab neighbors will simply tell the Palestinians what they realistically can and cannot expect from Israel in any possible peace settlement.
As we noted last week, President Obama recently observed that the situation in Iraq, Syria, and Libya “should cure anybody of the illusion that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the main source of problems in the region.” The president needs to follow up with Prime Minister Netanyahu on the latter’s invitation to the Arab world to act in light of developments in the region.