The Warsaw summit, attended by representatives from Arab countries alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, exposed a historic irony: Although the Israeli Left gave birth to the idea of a new Middle East, in actuality the vision is being fulfilled by the Right. Shimon Peres, who came up with the idea, sought to encapsulate Israel's desire for formal peace with its neighbors and an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, parallel to forging peace with the Palestinians. Reconciliation with the Palestinian national movement was perceived as the main key to achieving peace with the Arab countries in the region.
Due to the collapse of the Oslo process, "new Middle East" became synonymous with detachment from reality. Over the past decade, however, under consecutive right-wing governments no less, a historic process has transpired to entrench Israel's strategic, security and economic presence in the Middle East and cultivate widespread relations with Sunni countries. While Peres' vision was founded in a utopian-romantic approach, its current iteration is being implemented, by the Right, realistically and pragmatically.
Several factors are behind this fascinating exchange. First, Israel strengthened ties with the old-guard political elites in the Middle East amid the shock waves of the Arab Spring that hit the region in 2010. Second, moderate Arab rulers increasingly perceived Israel's economic and military might as a type of opportunity. Additionally, Iran's emergence as the pre-eminent threat to regional stability produced a confluence of interests between Israel and the Gulf Arab states. Finally, the waning peace process with the Palestinians allowed Arab countries to dispense with the notion that deeper cooperation with the Jewish state was dependent on an Israeli-Palestinian accord.
These trends mobilized a process predicated on a sober view of common interests between Israel and the Arab world. But the difference between Peres' vision for a new Middle East and its present materialization can't simply be boiled down to the contrast between romanticism and pragmatism. It is the result of shedding the aforementioned notion that the "Palestinian question" must be resolved before establishing a modicum of normalization with Israel; and the willingness of all parties to institute deep cooperative ties – some of which is hidden from the public eye. Thus a new sphere of ambiguity has emerged, which allows Gulf Arab states to cooperate with Israel to advance their own strategic interests without abandoning the appearance of devotion to the Palestinian issue.
Simply stated, this has revolutionized Israel's historically complex relations with Arab countries. Ever since the inception of the Jewish national movement, these relations have been characterized by the inherent tension between the Zionistic desire to return to the Jewish home, in the heart of the Middle East, and the other nations of the region. The current development could purport the erosion of the cliché that paints Israel as a "villa in the jungle" – which is meant to highlight its isolation in a hostile environment. The fruits of this development are already evident. For example, Qatar is playing the role of mediator between Israel and Hamas in Gaza; not to mention the overt display of partnership at the Warsaw conference.
Thus far, this sea change has mostly transpired under the veil of ambiguity. Completely lifting this ambiguity, however, could stall its progress and harm the prospects of a realistic new Middle East. The new Middle East driven by the Right still requires a policy of ambiguity.
