Editorial: The Saudis’ plan for Israel and Gaza leads back to the same old questions of autonomy and safety

America’s campuses may be filled with support for the Palestinians and harsh criticism for Israel, but Hamas has enjoyed more support in Cambridge and Oakland, and on the Chicago City Council, than in Riyadh, Doha or Dubai.

After all, the Saudis could have organized an oil boycott to exert pressure on the U.S., Britain and Israel’s other allies. The United Arab Emirates could have immediately severed diplomatic ties with Israel. Neither of those things happened.

Iran and Lebanon, of course, are another matter. And Egypt is very complicated. But the Saudis, Quataris and the U.A.E. clearly see the crudely theocratic Hamas as a threat to their economic stability and a distraction from such important matters as new soccer and golf leagues with global stars and Dubai’s Bugatti Residences by Binghatti, the luxury automaker’s first foray into residential development.

Long-term Middle East instability courtesy of jihadists is the last thing they desire. They’re well aware that the war-related collapse of tourism and international business in Israel, and the headlines of trauma in Gaza, are hurting their own ambitions.

If you parse their recent utterances, it’s clear that the booming Middle East wants Benjamin Netanyahu gone, but not by himself.

They’re hardly alone in their disdain for the Israeli prime minister: Netanyahu is under yet more domestic pressure following the the deaths of 24 Israeli soldiers (including 21 reservists) on Monday, his small nation’s biggest one-day loss since its ground offensive in Gaza began in October. And in the U.S., Joe Biden now needs to guard his left flank going into a reelection campaign. Given the palpable rhetorical shift at the White House, staffers clearly are worried about appearing too close to a man many Democrats see as a big problem.

As the war in Gaza drags on and Netanyahu’s stated goal of eradicating Hamas struggles to find practical definition, which was always going to be a problem, it’s hard to imagine the U.S. moving closer to the Israeli leader in coming weeks. Few U.S. tears would accompany his exit, and we would not be among the exceptions.

That said, it’s also clear that the secular portion of the Arab world views Hamas leadership in much the same terms, not to mention their disdain for Mahmoud Abbas, the ineffective leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, a view shared by some Palestinians of our acquaintance. They’d like to see all of these leaders gone. We agree.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that a senior Egyptian official said that Israel had proposed through mediators a “two-month cease-fire in which the hostages would be freed in exchange for the release of Palestinians prisoners held in Israel and allowing top Hamas leaders in Gaza to relocate to other countries.” If Israel could be assured that the Hamas leadership was no longer in Gaza, as distinct from hiding in hospitals and crowded towns, it would be easier for them to limit civilian casualties, logic would suggest. Of course, that begs the question of verification, not to mention where they would go and how welcome they would be on arrival.

A moot point for now. Hamas, the news agency reported, rejected the proposal, insisting on releasing no more hostages without Israeli’s withdrawal from Gaza and an end to all hostilities. That’s not going to happen, given a traumatized Israel’s legitimate worries about its security and, of course, Netanyahu’s similarly understandable need to ensure Israelis do not ever believe their parents, sons and daughters to have died in vain.

Simply put, there now is a need for different thinking by different leaders. All around.

In that context, we’re intrigued by the recent proposal by the Arab states that would dangle the hefty carrot of the Saudis normalizing their official relationship with Israel in return for Israel’s commitment, or recommitment, to a healthy Palestinian state.

Many Israelis think the Saudis will come to the realization that they and Israel have to band together to fight common enemies: Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen and the Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq. It’s also true that normalized relationships are much lower on the list of priorities for the average Israeli than feeling safe and recovering from the trauma of last fall, pain surely reignited by Monday’s losses. In Gaza, of course, tens of thousands have died and some 85% of the population have fled their homes and mostly moved south in search of their own safety, an elusive quest for those families.

But the oil-rich Saudis also are dangling another carrot through the mouth of Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan: financing the rebuilding of Gaza. That too, they are saying, requires an Israeli commitment to a Palestinian state.

Many Israelis believe they have seen this movie before and know how it ends. Still, someone will have to rebuild Gaza, which largely has been leveled, and the open Saudi checkbook surely is preferable to a permanent Israeli occupation with more settlements, more Palestinians displaced and conflict intensifying over the years to come. Most reasonable people can see that.

And if the Saudis are paying to rebuild Gaza even as they normalize relationships with Israel, does it not follow that a new Saudi-influenced Gaza could operate under the same pragmatic thinking? With leaders capable of comprehending with what Oct. 7 did to the psyches of the Israeli people?

But that will have to be accompanied by a recognition throughout Palestine (and its allies abroad) of Israel’s right to exist and, of course, a commitment to no more October 7ths.

A public “never again.”

Not so likely. But what other good choices exist?

Join the discussion on Twitter @chitribopinions and on Facebook .

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com .