The Arab Summit in Doha obliterated its chances of putting forth serious stances before the G-20 Summit - which brings together the world's twenty largest economies - and did not formulate any sensible strategies that could be taken into consideration. Indeed, the summit of "reconciliations" took pride in defying the International Criminal Court (ICC) and demanding the annulment of the warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, allying itself with one accused of committing war crimes in Darfur and dealing with international justice as if it was the new enemy. The Arab Summit threatened to lose its patience regarding Israel's continued failure to accept the Arab Peace Initiative, and forgot that it must think of what can or should be done faced with the clearly extremist Israeli vision for the future of the Palestinians.

It never occurred to the leaders of the summit to work together to formulate a strategy that could be placed before the new US President, Barack Obama, who accepts and asks for different opinions to examine and take into account when setting his own strategy. Furthermore, the Arab Summit did not address one of the major issues of dispute between Arabs, which is the nature of their relationship with Iran. Certainly, the Arab Summit missed the opportunity to look into a way to emphasize the willingness of the Arabs to be partners in the global responsibility to resolve the financial crisis, and did not have the chance to define a direction for the standing of the Arabs in the world of tomorrow, under new partnerships and rivalries.

Nevertheless, despite all of this, Qatar's leadership exerted noticeable effort to avoid surprises, such as in the past when it had invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Hamas leadership, and made sure to respect and appreciate the participation of the Saudi leadership at the summit. Now that Qatar has taken over as head of the Arab Summit for the coming year, it has the opportunity to rise above disputes and to turn the reconciliations into a starting point for the Arab region. It is the opportunity for it to clarify that its support of Hamas did not aim at making it the alternative to the Palestinian Authority, but rather a qualified partner in this difficult phase for the Palestinians, the opportunity to restore the dignity of moderation instead of encouraging extremism in order to exploit the people's anger at the powerlessness of the Arabs.

Indeed, under the new world policies and partnerships that are being formed, Arab countries have a certain standing, but it will remain suspended for as long as Arab leaderships fail to rise above arbitrariness, to respect international justice and to think shrewdly in order to seize opportunities instead of randomly wasting them.

Clearly Saudi Arabia will not choose to represent the Arabs at the G-20 as long as they are so bitterly divided. Indeed, the invitation to join this group was not made on the basis of the invited country representing its region but rather on that of it alone being invited from its region, meaning that it is the most qualified country in its region based on economic and non-economic considerations. It is in the interest of the Arabs to persuade Saudi Arabia to assume leadership, not just in order for it to represent them at the G-20, but also because King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz is leading a revolutionary path of reform, putting forth visionary suggestions at the political level, stretching out his hand to the followers of other religions, and speaking the language of tolerance that is necessary to defeat the extremism that has brought terrorism to both Arabs and Muslims.

It is in the interest of the Arabs for the reconciliations to be serious and profound, not just tactical in puzzling battles that give rise to various interpretations. Qatar heading the Summit is an opportunity to close the chapter of unnecessary rivalries and to open a new chapter of positive partnerships that would surprise all those who have wagered against them. There is an urgent need to develop the situation of the Arabs to save it from decline and raise it to progress. It is necessary for Arab countries to convince Saudi Arabia to lead and to represent the Arabs in international partnerships.

Today, there is competition over influencing the Obama Administration not just from countries that seek to define the bases of their relations with the United States, whether stable or transitory, friendly or hostile. Indeed, competition also comes from American intellectual institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations that have much influence on the US Administration, as well as from individuals who are influential in US policy-making. For example, upon close examination of what the different studies and intellectual institutions have been producing, the radical disagreement becomes clear between those who want President Barack Obama to avoid the Palestinian-Israeli issue and focus instead on Syrian-Israeli negotiations, and those who drive the US President to seize the historical opportunity and dare to create peace between the Palestinians and Israel, by intervening for the sake of the US's national interest and not just for the sake of Israel and the Palestinians.

The opportunity is ripe today more than ever for the US to adopt the policy of intervention and to move forward with a comprehensive vision and clear red lines, to impose its policy on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides on the basis of the available international consensus.

Indeed, the new Israeli government, represented by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is an extremist from the Likud, and the nationalist extremist Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, will not cooperate with diplomacy for the sake of peace and coexistence with the Palestinians. This government is forthright in its rejection of US policy and of international consensus over the two-state solution - Palestine alongside Israel - and is clear in its desire to pursue the peace "process" while in reality proceeding to undermine the fundamental constituents of the Palestinian state. This is a government that needs all the justifications and any pretexts to achieve the objectives of establishing a Jewish state clean of Arabs inside Israel, and of preventing the establishment of a sustainable Palestinian state neighboring Israel.

If the Obama Administration is sincere in its commitment to the two-state solution and to "perseverance" towards achieving that goal, it must be aware that open-ended perseverance buys time for Netanyahu to evade the issue. What is required is to move forward with a vision of the solution in all of its political and security aspects, and to persevere in imposing it on both sides. This will require firm and brave stances from the rest of the international community, from Russia, China and Europe to Arab countries and lucid Jewish leaderships worldwide.

The US President has before him today a detailed study that includes lucid suggestions presented by a group of former senior officials under Democratic and Republican administrations under the name "US/Middle East Project", with Henry Siegman as President, and Brent Scowcroft, who was National Security Advisor to both Presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush Senior, as Chairman its International Board. The study, entitled "A Last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement", bears the signatures of nine others: Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, former Senator Chuck Hagel, Lee Hamilton, Carla Hills, Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, Thomas Pickering, Ted Sorensen, Paul Volcker and former President of the World Bank James Wolfensohn.

Regardless of the differing stances of those who authored it, this study in itself and the suggestions that it includes reflect an audacity, lucidity and responsibility other than that which accompanies official statements. In fact, some of it reflects a growth in individual thinking through passage of time and because of group thinking. For a start, it challenges the three fundamental claims that justify the usefulness of not intervening, which are: that the President should give priority to more important issues that concern national security, such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia and terrorism; that peace cannot be imposed by the United States or by anyone else, and that it should be left to the concerned parties themselves; and that pressure on both sides (particularly Israel) could arouse the anger of a domestic popular base within the United States. The study explains why these claims have no sound basis, and then provides the margins that the US has, which should reflect the fundamental halfway solutions in relation to the borders of the two states on the basis of the lines of June 4, 1967, resolving the issue of the refugees, adopting Jerusalem as two capitals for two states, and taking the necessary security measures, including the presence of multinational forces during the transition period.

The most important basis of this study is the fact that it unequivocally gives priority to the Palestinian-Israeli problem, and does not leap over it by reactivating Syrian-Israeli negotiations. In its study, this group speaks of encouraging Israeli-Syrian negotiations that would "transform the regional landscape and ultimately detach Damascus from its uneasy strategic partnership with Iran". They call on the US Administration to be active in such direct negotiations "even as it works actively on the Israeli-Palestinian track".

The big difference between what this group calls for in terms of engagement and intervention in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations as a priority, even if it imagines detaching Damascus from Tehran, and between what is called for by institutions, groups and individuals who are demanding that the Obama Administration keep Palestinian-Israeli negotiations on hold, let the two sides deal with each other without intervening, and instead be distracted with Syrian-Israeli negotiations. And that is important.

Another important point is in this study clarifying its positions when it calls for a "pragmatic approach toward Hamas and a Palestinian Unity Government". It does not call for the US Administration to speak with Hamas as an alternative to the Palestinian Authority, but rather to "cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might help clarify the movement's views and test its behavior". The group says that engaging directly with Hamas may not be practical, but that the Administration must encourage "Palestinian national reconciliation and make clear that a government that agrees to a ceasefire with Israel, accepts President Mahmoud Abbas as the chief negotiator, and commits to abiding by the results of a national referendum on a future peace agreement would not be boycotted or sanctioned".

There are of course reservations on this study, such as it assuming a role for Syria in Lebanon similar to the one it had before it was forced to withdraw its troops from it, as it states: "Syria would be expected to use its influence to encourage Lebanon to reach a formal peace with Israel and to negate any threats to Israel from Lebanese territory". It is true that Syria has influence with Hezbollah, yet it does not hold the tools to impose anything on it - unlike Iran - except for stopping the influx of more weapons, which Hezbollah possesses abundantly.

What matters is that there is profound thinking, daring stances and a detailed study before the US President, as there is the opportunity of the obstinacy and pretension of the Israeli government that allows for imposing solutions upon it and upon the Palestinian side.

What this window needs is for the Arabs to think out of the box and to act based on the new facts, with determination, cohesion and complete partnership with the US Administration and the international community on the basis of legitimacy for the sake of peace. This in turn means that Arab leaderships must understand that international legitimacy and justice are not a dish or a plate at a buffet, of which you can choose what you like, in calculated steps, randomly or acrobatically.