It may seem misdirected to insist on there being in place a credible effort to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when there is so much turmoil in neighboring states. There is, however, a critical case for not letting that effort stay dormant. There is even an argument that the situations in some neighboring states would become more coherent if an Israeli-Palestinian peace effort promised a stable and just resolution.

Instead, virtually all of the Israelis' and Palestinians' neighbors -- Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and more distant Libya and Yemen -- are in turmoil even as the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians evolves in unhelpful ways.

If one could see discernible evidence of progress toward a two-state solution, promising an Israel and a Palestine side-by-side, living at peace with each other, free to develop economically and becoming interdependent, some of the neighbors might find the spirit of compromise contagious and feel obliged to behave better.

The example of Israelis and Palestinians working their problems out calmly and rationally might provide the region a model. Instead, the picture is more one of a dysfunctional extended family, its members fighting among themselves as the flames threaten to spread to the neighbors.

The Obama administration has thrown up its hands on trying to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, at least until after the November 2012 elections. President Barack Obama does not want to antagonize elements in America who favor Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approach to the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which could be roughly described as letting the half-million Jewish settlers on Palestinian territory do what they like and stiff-arming anyone who wants to organize or even favor a credible peace process.

The stance of Mr. Netanyahu and his Likud Party is supported by many Republicans, including some Republican presidential candidates, who cite in their bill-of-particulars against Mr. Obama his approach to the Israeli-Palestinian question. Never mind the old dictum of U.S. politics stopping at the water's edge.

In the meantime, it is obvious that what started as the Arab Spring is showing major growing pains -- with the exception of Tunisia, which is progressing nicely toward democracy. Egypt's problems are perhaps the most dramatic because of the sharp contrast between the revolution that appeared to have occurred and what the Egyptian military is now trying to make of it.

The military seemed to support pro-democracy advocates in February when it helped eject Hosni Mubarak from the presidency. Now, reinstalled in power "to restore order," it seeks to retain all its economic and political privileges, whatever occurs in the elections that begin this week. The message to Egyptians is not to get any crazy ideas about actual democracy. And to those who thought things had changed and are demonstrating again in Tahrir Square, the military is prepared to shoot them to make its point.

By the way, the United States is continuing to pour more than a billion dollars a year into Egyptian military coffers. Never mind the pious words about democratization from Washington; the Obama administration is gun-shy on the subject of the Islamic Brotherhood, which might win the elections, and wants to keep the neighborhood quiet for Israel, so in its heart of hearts it really wants the military to maintain control in Egypt.

U.S. policy toward Syria sounds tough, but, in reality, the Obama administration is delighted that China and Russia likely will continue to prevent the U.N. Security Council from authorizing anything other than sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Asad. Knocking over Mr. Asad's operation would be infinitely more difficult than taking down Moammar Gadhafi's government in Libya.

It is also daunting to contemplate what would happen if there were in Syria the kind of chaos that now prevails in Libya, where the tribal, regional and religious elements that constitute the victorious coalition are scrapping over the cadaver of the country Gadhafi left behind. The mess in Libya is separated from the rest of the Middle East by the Mediterranean Sea and Egypt. Syria borders on Israel and Lebanon.

Iran also has learned a lesson from Libya. Gadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons at the behest of the United States and others. Look at the ease with which his government fell victim to outside assault. Would that have occurred if Gadhafi had nuclear weapons? Iran has to ask itself that question.

In any case, Mr. Obama is doing little to revive a Middle East peace process. He convened Mr. Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas Sept. 1, 2010, and gave them a year to negotiate an agreement. They didn't, and the one-year anniversary passed unremarked by the Obama administration.

Perhaps it is dreamy speculation that matters across the Middle East would unroll in a more constructive fashion if there were under way a negotiating process that might end the 63-year-old dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians. At the same time, peace in the wider Middle East, the oil-rich Middle East, cannot arrive until that problem is resolved.

Mr. Obama is telling Americans that we now are supposed to see ourselves as an Asian power and turn our attention toward the Pacific, but this will not change the compelling nature of the issues that embroil the Middle East one iota.