Two wars at once?

[Occhidiangela]

1. Is hardly an Arab state of significance. That is why I chose the words that I did. Jordan is beyond weak, and are of basically no threat. Not only that, but King Hussein was one of the more moderate and progressive leaders to have graced the Mid East for some time. He was looking out for HIS OWN interests when he made his peace with his neighbor.

Try again.

2. Maybe you should consider that the Israeli's don't trust the Saudi's for a good reason. Maybe if an offer is made to you by an historic enemy, you tread forward with great care. How about you do your own homework, and consider how war by other means on Israel is a matter of habit. The trade embargo that was in place beginning in 1948 was, as late as the late 1970's, getting US companies into trouble for compliance, in our Congress. IIRC, Coca Cola got fined by our Congress for supporting the Arab trade embargo, which included third order sanctions along these lines: "If you do business with business that do business with Israel, you can't do business with us."

If the Arab world really wanted to embrace Israel into their commuity, and work constructive change from within, they would do what many smarter nations have done: do it via trade. Completely revamping trade policy vis a vis Israel in every Arab capital would be an enormous move forward that could create a win-win expectancy, and most likely earn the trust to create a locally crafted mutual security arrangement. The problem is, "it aint enough" has been the theme since about 1970.

The track record of the Arab world is clear. War, by military might and war, by other means, have been used, and continue to be used, both oficially and covertly.

Only Egypt has, of the substantial nations who posed the initial threat, moved forward and 'closed the deal.' Until the Saudi's and their other powerful colleagues in the Arab world can actually "close the deal" (which in Egypt's case took the US and Jimmy Carter as honest broker to achieve) then they remain in the "all talk, no action camp." To close the deal, they have to either earn the Isreali's trust, which they most obviously have not, or convince an honest broker, such as France, NATO, US, UK, India, some one, to act as mediator and or honest broker.

3. How about let's return to Syria. Without a substantive peace agreement with Syria, how is Israel in any way confident in its future security? Without a substantive peace agreement with Iraq, how can Isreal be secure? Without a substantive peace agreement that does not leave them vulnerable to repeated invasion, agreements with every important nation in the Arab world, what incentive does Isreal have to adopt a position other than their present paranoic one? But you did sort of raise an interesting point: look at what Jordan achieved, and maybe the rest of the Arab world could consider how Jordan has moved forward, as weak as they are. I suspect that you will find there is an ego problem lurking therein.

4. Once again, welcome to the real world. If you choose to take the position that Israel is in the wrong to exist, then you will continue to take the positions that you do. That is OK. I take the position that Israel has a right to exist, and so basing my PoV on that. And I contend that you have blinders on insofar as the Palestinian question, who are the foil used to keep Israel ugly in the negotiation process. That too, is a tool "by other means."

You tell me how Arab nations will actually earn the trust of Israel, and I will probably email your suggestion to the Nobel committee, and recommend they award you the prize. That key ingredient remains absent.

Consider how many years it took for the US and USSR to slowly break down the wall of distrust between them. That is still a work in progress.