There is a peacemaker in the White House and now we know what Israel is doing about it. Since his first and only meeting with the US president in May, the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to derail Mr Obama’s efforts even before he announces his long-awaited peace plan for the Middle East. Mr Netanyahu has failed so far but there is no guarantee that he will not succeed in the future.

In his meeting with Mr Netanyahu, Mr Obama clearly communicated to him a determination to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and the remaining issues of occupation once and for all. Why does Mr Obama want to do this? Surely, not just to restore regional stability, not just to safeguard Israel’s future or “to save it from itself”, in the words of Gideon Levy, a columnist for Ha’aretz, and not just to end the agony of the Palestinians. A final settlement is in the national interest of the US, particularly after the Bush administration had so deeply tarnished America’s moral standing and credibility.

Mr Obama has made his view clear from day one when he said that there will be a new approach to the problems of the broader Middle East. But what have the Arabs done so far?

Once again, the Arabs are confronted with a task that is a matter of public relations as well as politics. The Israelis often accuse the Arabs of “missing peace opportunities” despite the fact that Israeli intransigence is the central obstacle to peace. It was a long-serving foreign minister of Israel, the South African- born and British-educated Abba Eban, who coined the saying “the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”, after Syria boycotted the December 1973 Geneva Peace Conference.

But since the assassination by a Jewish extremist of Yitzhak Rabin, a partner to Yasser Arafat in the Oslo Peace Accords, successive Israeli prime ministers have unjustly claimed that they had no partner for peace in the Middle East. But if the current Israeli leadership refuses Mr Obama’s overtures for peace in the region, which is likely the case unless Mr Netanyahu decides to call for a fresh election, it is Israel that will be the absent partner. And in fact, Mr Netanyahu has reportedly informed members of the US Congress that Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, is adamant “to break up my cabinet and force me to resign” unless he accepts Mr Obama’s Middle East approach.

The Israeli prime minister has already tried and failed to change the subject and divert the US president’s attention. There can be no movement on the Palestinian conflict, Mr Netanyahu has said, until the threat of Iran’s nuclear programme has been confronted. The US administration is concerned about this as well but has made it clear that there are a number of options available to deal with it apart from the Arab-Israeli issue.

So Mr Netanyahu is facing a real test of wills in Washington and will continue to stall as much as he can until he can crack what has been a solid and unified Obama White House. The Obama administration speaks with one voice: settlements must stop and the peace process must begin. But the Israeli prime minister will persist until he succeeds in derailing the administration’s Middle East policy. He knows that the real battle with the administration is not in the White House, but in the US congress where many foreign policy decisions are ultimately made. And Mr Netanyahu may find encouragement in a letter signed by 329 members of Congress at the behest of the powerful American pro-Israel lobby, Aipac (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

After Mr Netanyahu’s immediate refusal of the US demand to apply a total freeze on illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, the administration has started to look elsewhere to keep the ball rolling. It seeks concessions from the Arabs such as the opening of Israeli trade delegations in Arab countries in exchange for a settlement freeze. This has been rightly brushed aside by the Saudi foreign minister, Saud Al Faisal, who has echoed the widespread Arab call for a “comprehensive approach” to peace that “defines the final outcome at the outset and launches into negotiations over final status issues”.

The Arabs should not budge from this position and not just because Saudi Arabia is behind a comprehensive Arab peace plan calling for Israel to surrender 22 per cent of historic Palestine and the withdrawal from Syrian and Lebanese occupied territories in return for peace and full recognition. This offer has been spurned by Israel since it was endorsed at the 2002 Beirut Arab summit. The Arabs have learnt the bitter lesson of offering more. In the mid-1990s, at the height of the peace process following the Oslo Accords, Israel reaped a peace dividend without delivering peace. The number of nations recognising Israel nearly doubled from 85 to 161. Israeli exports also doubled and foreign investment in the country increased six-fold. But the Palestinians and Arabs not only got nothing in return, per capita income in the occupied territories fell by more than a third. The number of settlers increased by 50 per cent and more than 700 roadblocks were established, separating Palestinians from their families.

The Arabs should tell Mr Obama that they need to get more than a settlement freeze out of Israel. But can the Arabs stand as firm as required to confront the forthcoming pressure? Of course they can if there is a unified will and voice. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are politically weak and miserably divided. Their leadership is not up to the task on its own. Therefore, it may seem a reasonable and practical idea for the Arabs to produce an action plan and delegate to Saudi Arabia and Syria to speak on behalf of the entire Arab League, including the Palestinians. On the one hand, the kingdom is Washington’s closest Arab ally, and on the other Damascus has become the new address where many US envoys have been headed. This partnership can work tremendously well as the two countries have gradually ironed out their differences over Lebanon in recent months.

More importantly, only Damascus, the self-proclaimed centre for the Arab Mumanieen (objectionists) including Hizbollah and Hamas, and also the home for the so-called Palestinian hardliners such as the Hamas political bureau chief, Khaled Meshaal, can deliver the Mumanieen. Therefore, any understanding between Riyadh and Damascus on how to handle negotiation at this phase will not only unify both hardline and moderate wings of the Arab world, but will also significantly enhance their credibility.