Barack Obama has made it clear that if elected president he will promptly attempt to “organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West.” Obama insists that, at this summit, the U.S. “must also listen to the[] concerns” of these Muslim heads of states.

Naturally, the concerns expressed will vary. As Abe Greenwald observes, the Iraqi head of state will be concerned that Obama is in the process of withdrawing the troops needed to protect his country from chaos and destruction. But Obama has left little doubt that he has no sympathy for that concern.

The more common concern will be the one Middle Eastern Arab leaders have been expressing for decades – the State of Israel. Here, they are likely to find a more sympathetic ear inasmuch as Obama’s advisers, especially key adviser Samatha Power, also have a history of unhappiness with Israel.

There are two possibilities here. First, Obama might turn a deaf ear to key Arab leaders when they urge him to undercut Israeli interests. In that event, the summit almost certainly will be a failure, perhaps a spectacular one. Obama will come away with nothing. Our nation's standing (as Obama sees it) as an arrogant power unwilling to listen to others will be reinforced. The great agent of change will have changed nothing, except that, by enhancing the status of the dictators of Syria and Iran, he will have undermined the standing of the domestic opponents of those dictators.

The second possibility is that Obama’s interest in avoiding the above consequences, coupled with his inclination and that of his main advisers, will cause him to appease Israel’s opponents by tilting significantly away from Israel.

I won’t speculate as to which of these two possibilities is more likely. Those who care about Israel’s security, and ours, should be loath to support a candidate who would put himself in that box.