The left-wing organization Peace Now has manufactured a crisis out of a symbolic order, signed by the mayor of Jerusalem, authorizing continued construction of homes in eastern Jerusalem. The housing project had been approved in 2012, and half of the new units had been set aside for Jerusalem Arabs. Why should the White House, the State Department, and the media have pounced on it as evidence of of Israeli bad faith? Elliott Abrams speculates:

The administration reaction is curious given that this is not new news, given that Arabs and Jews will live in the housing, and given the remarkably negative speech that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas gave to the UN last week. The State Department rejected Abbas’s speech as “offensive” and “deeply disappointing.” I suppose it’s possible that the President now wanted to “balance” things by adding tough words for Israel.

But if this was a victory of sorts for Peace Now, it was no victory for the Obama administration or for those who seek peace negotiations. Building new housing for Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem does not in fact “call into question Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians,” the foolish and extreme phrase of both the White House spokesman and the State Department.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.