The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) joined the Arab league on Thursday by reiterating their support for an Arab peaceplan for the Middle East, formulated at a summit in 2002. The OIC endorsed the plan by publishing full-page ads in Turkey’s Hurriyet daily.

The plan, initiated by Saudi Arabia, would promise Israel “normal ties” with Arab countries in return for the Jewish nation-state’s withdrawal from all lands occupied in and / or after the 1967 war. This war was ignited by Israel’s neighbors, mostly for domestic rather than foreign reasons, who lost. The tiny Jewish nation-state defended itself and won the war, thereby occupying lands officially owned by its enemies.

Although Israel rejected the plan in 2002, several Israeli leaders and influential politicians are willing to endorse it today. The country’s leading parties and individuals remain divided, however, making it unlikely that the plan will be implemented for the time being.

Israel’s right considers the plan to be a “trap”: the first step in a long process to destroy Israel. The country’s left, on the other hand, considered the plan a serious peace offer and is willing to accept it peace is indeed guaranteed. The Kadima party of Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon and now Tzipi Livni is divided.

Many passionate Israel supporters in the West, especially in the United States, agree with the country’s rightists believing that the plan is not meant to establish peace but, rather, the voluntary surrender and destruction of Israel. Although there may be something to this reasoning – many argue that radical Muslims cannot accept the existence of a Jewish nation-state in Arab lands which is correct – these individuals overlook the fact that Arab rulers would have a major problem if Israel would indeed be destroyed.

The reason is as follows: whenever something bad happens in the Middle East, Israel is blamed. When an Arab economy falters or authoritarian leaders face stiff opposition, the government focuses its attention on Israel, insults it, attacks it (at the very least in words) and unites its people by doing so. Arab rulers have for the last 60 years used Israel as a scapegoat. If Israel were to be destroyed, these governments would lose their scapegoat and they would face instant rebellion: Islamists would demand more religion in the public square, everyone else more freedom; the poor and powerless would revolt.

Israel’s destruction would undoubtedly mark the end of many regimes in the Arab world.

Of course, in order to continue using Israel as a scapegoat it will need to exist. On the other hand, Arabs have been insulted and defeated by the Jewish nation-state time and again. Arab regimes need to give their people something, they need to win a victory of Israel, without destroying it. The peace plan cooked up by the Saudis accomplishes this. It would give Arab leaders the opportunity to brag to their people about their diplomacy.

‘Israel fears us,’ they will tell their people. ‘The lands have been liberated, the humiliation has been undone. We can once again be proud.’

Such a ‘victory’ would make these regimes instantly more popular, except for with Islamists who would consider it ’surrender.’ However, these regimes often have great propaganda skills and tools: the battle is not about the hearts and minds of Islamists but about the hearts and minds of common folk. If Arab regimes can present the deal as a victory for their side and do so pursuasively, Israel will still be scapegoated every now and then, but animosity towards it could be less passionate than it is today.

Of course, the above is one option. Whatever Israel decides to do, it will be a gamble. To embrace the plan could prove disastrous, to reject it could be a missed opportunity if the other side is honest and serious; an opportunity Israel cannot afford to waste.