David,

You are a one trick pony.

You pointed out in your article:

"The subsequent annexation of the West Bank by Transjordan two years later was only recognised by Great Britain and Pakistan. The failure of other members of the United Nations to recognise such annexation has prolonged a conflict that with a little bit of give and take could have been resolved more than 60 years ago by negotiations between Israel, Egypt and Jordan."

I would rewrite it:

The subsequent annexation of the West Bank by Transjordan two years later was only recognised by Great Britain and Pakistan. The failure of Great Britain and Pakistan to recognise an untenable situation while other members of the United Nations were aware of the fact that the Palestinians had developed a separate identity has prolonged a conflict that with a little bit of give and take could have been resolved more than 60 years ago by negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The conflict could be resolved by the creation of a secular, democratic state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean which did not discriminate among its citizens on the basis of religion and ethnicity. In this secular, democratic state Jews and Arabs could live in peace maintaining their respective identities without drawing political boundaries around themselves. Jews and Arabs live in peace in the US and Australia in that manner.

To shift governance of the Palestinian Bantustans to the Kingdom of Jordan may well deliver “immense dividends” to the racist settler state and pause the Arab-Israel conflict until the next Zionist grab to pursue its goal of Eretz Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. There are no dividends in this expansionist dream, or the Jordan phase plumped for by Mr Singer, for the 5 million exiles whose land has been stolen.

A better solution, one which would bring a measure of justice to the exiles and rid the world of the incessant threatening demands of the ethnic state to go to war for it, would be based on RETURN:

• Open the borders of Palestine to return of the exiles to their homeland
• Compel settlers not born in the territory to return to THEIR homelands*
• Develop Palestine (from the sea to the Jordan River and north to the border of Lebanon) as a secular democratic state with equal rights for all inhabitants

*Dispensation could even be negotiated to allow foreign settlers who have never personally used force against the Palestinians to remain as unarmed guests.

One of the things I most enjoy about this disingenuous article is thinking about how quickly the Israeli government will go into comma-splitting mode to determine just how much land will be included in the west bank.
Bugger all is my guess.
With no room left for any configuration of a separate Palestine, substituting Jordan, a bogus construct of a state if ever there was one, is more dancing with smoke.
One nation from the river to the sea is the only long-term viable option. And Israel is so on the wrong side of history. Whatever will they do when America tanks?
My suggestion is to fess up. As the world forgave Germany, so too will it one day forgive Israel. But first some serious truth and reconciliation needs going through.
Granting full right-of-return might be a real good place to start.

Amen.

Blessings on Prince Hassan's head and his father King Abdullah, may he prosper and may his reign last forever.

In Judaism, a father is considered responsible for the sins of his small children, so when a Jewish boy turns 13 and has his Bar-Mitzvah, his father attends to the Torah scroll and blesses God: "Blessed be He who acquitted me from this guy's [referring to his son] punishment".

So now it seems from this report (and kisses to David Singer if it's true), that Jordan has finally reached maturity and is willing to shoulder the burden of the West Bank - congratulations!

Naturally the Palestinian problem is not going to disappear, but now it will be transferred to Jordan and Israel will no longer be involved... on one condition: The West-Bank must be returned to Jordan complete, in full, no if's and but's, all to the last square centimeter, millimeter in fact, the whole cursed land including Eastern Jerusalem.

This will prove the beginning of the road to healing Israel from the corruption that befell it in 1967 when it bit the poisoned fruit of occupation.
(Sinai and the Gaza strip were already returned and as soon as security allows, the Golan Heights should be returned as well, to Syria)

OTOH, poor Jordanians - what have THEY done to deserve having that cursed territory?

The right of return is a vexed question, but one that can be resolved. In my conversations with a number of leading West Bank Palestinians, including those in government, I was told that a 'symbolic' right of return, involving perhaps a few thousand, plus fair compensation for the rest, would be acceptable. As one pointed out, most of the original inhabitants of these lands are dead and there descendants have made their homes elsewhere. Thus it has become a symbolic issue, rather than a humanitarian one. However, I accept that right of return is just one of a number of stumbling blocks on the road to a true and lasting peace in the Middle East.

To davidf

Problem with your missive is that in 1950 there was no talk of a Palestinian people with a separate identity.

The 1947 UN partition plan only spoke of the creation of a Jewish State and an Arab state.

True that twenty percent of Israel's population is Arab - and it appears they want to remain in the Jewish state.

However to expect the West Bank and Gazan Arabs to become citizens of Israel with their in bred hatred of Jews spawned by the PLO and Hamas is a pure pipe dream.

Far better that the areas they inhabit be once again incorporated within Jordan and their citizenship rights are restored as existed between 1950-1988.

#To Emperor Julian

A totally implausible suggestion that has no chance of ever happening.

Dividing sovereignty of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel is a distinct possibility if both countries can be brought to the negotiating table.

#To halduell

A remarkably similar idea to Emperor Julian's. Can be consigned to the dustbin because it has not got a chance of happening.

#To Yuyutsu

The report is true and I am really touched by your kiss in appreciation of my conveying it to you.

The west bank was not cursed territory for Jordan between 1940-1967. It thrived as part of Jordan. It can do so again in those parts that once more become part of Jordan.

I think you need to leave it to negotiations between Israel and Jordan to sort out who gets what. That is what negotiations are designed to achieve.

To Graham Cooke

Your suggestions are eminently achievable and have been raised in previous negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Those negotiations are dead in the water.

The negotiating parameters in regard to refugees are already prescribed in Article 8 of the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty

Dear David,

You are correct. In 1950 there was no talk of a Palestinian people with a separate identity. However, what was true in 1950 is no longer true. The Palestinian people have developed a separate identity. They developed it in the same way that the American people developed a separate identity. Before the American Revolution the American people were English colonists living apart from their homeland. They developed a separate identity due to their struggle against the English crown. If we could go back to 1950 I would agree with you. However, in their struggle against Israel the Palestinian people have developed a separate identity in the same way that the US people have developed a separate identity. It is as unrealistic to maintain that the Palestinian people become part of Jordan as it would be to maintain that the US become a possession of Great Britain as it once was. You keep trying to go back to a past condition and ignore what has happened since 1950.

Perhaps we can learn from history. There has been a great deal of hatred between France and Germany. They are now living peacefully together in the European Union, and it is unlikely that there will be another war between them at least in the near future. It would have seemed like a pipe dream to think of them living together peacefully for much of modern history. They had to conquer much hatred. However, they have done it.

I see no reason why Jews and Arabs cannot also conquer their animosity and live together peacefully in a country where they government makes no distinction among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity and religion.

Since much of the hatred has been fueled by religion it is necessary to get government out of the religion business to have peace.

Middle East history before Israel had Jews living in Muslim states as dhimmis. In Israel Jews and Arabs rarely mix in school. In fact secular Jews have separate schools from the Haredim. In Australia the government finances religious schools. I think that is also wrong. What is needed for democracy is a good public school system where students of different backgrounds learn together, grow together and become adults prepared to live together. I think there is a place for religious schools, but they should not be financed in any way by the government in either Australia and Israel. At this moment it is a pipe dream to have a democracy between the Jordan and Mediterranean where government where government does not discriminate among the citizens on the basis of ethnicity or religion, but it doesn't need to be so in the future. A democratic, secular state can result in peace.

Dear David,

<<The west bank was not cursed territory for Jordan between 1940-1967. It thrived as part of Jordan. It can do so again in those parts that once more become part of Jordan.>>

May Allah hear your words!

<<I think you need to leave it to negotiations between Israel and Jordan to sort out who gets what. That is what negotiations are designed to achieve.>>

Negotiations occur when there are conflicting interests.

Up until your article I was under the impression that there was a conflict, for it is in nobody's interest to have that cursed land.
Now it is revealed that Jordan wants it - so what's the problem? let them have it - and let Israel walk free of this burden!

You don't do a service to an addict by allowing them to negotiate on having just a "little bit" of their drug once in a while - the corruption of the Israeli psyche can only begin to heal once ALL the 1967 poison is removed.

# To david f

So you now agree the Palestinians had no separate identity in 1950 and it developed after then.

When do you think that separate identity crystallised?

How genuine is it and why should it be supported when the quid pro quo is the disappearance of the Jewish national identity and the Jewish state that long preceded it?

Why should Israel be solely responsible for accommodating this new found identity in the 17% of former Palestine that Israel now comprises? Why shouldn't Jordan which comprises 78% of former Palestine also be part of any solution?

Why must this new found Palestinian identity established after 1950 for the first time in recorded history necessarily only result in an independent state of its own?

Have much older national identities such as the Kurds,Basques,Corsicans, Catalans been granted such sovereign independent states? Does anyone care whether they achieve such statehood?

Dear David,

I am not advocating that the Palestinians have a separate state of their own. I am advocating that there be a state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean which does not discriminate among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity and religion. I can live in Australia and keep my identity as a Jew. The government does not interfere with my being a Jew. I belong to a synagogue, but my religion or ethnic identity is no business of the Australian government. I am advocating the same thing for the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

Sure, it would mean the end of the Jewish state. I am against Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist states. Religion should be no business of any government. Just as I keep my identity as a Jew and live in Australia Jews and Palestinians can keep their identity in a religiously neutral state. It is not feasible at this time, but a change in attitude can make it feasible. I support the lawsuit that would deny commonwealth funding to chaplains in Australian schools and hope that such funding will be denied to religious schools. I am not against religious schools, but I am against government funding them.

Better a strong public school system where children of different backgrounds learn to live together. Separation will be less rigid if some of them intermarry.

#To Yuyutsu

Based on the current polical view of the current Government in Israel - I do not believe the West Bank is regarded as a burden by the majority of Israelis.

Israel will not be ceding its claims to all of the West Bank in any negotiations. This has been made abundantly clear in the two offers made by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008 by Governments of different political persuasion to the current government.

Negotiations are a must to settle the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank between Jews and Arabs. The incompetent Palestinian Authority has thrown away the opportunities afforded to it over the last 19 years.

It is now Jordan's turn to see if it can do better.

#To david f

Another large step forward by you - no state between Israel and Jordan for the recently created post-1950 Palestinian people.

A secular democratic state is a great concept in theory - but totally irrelevant when talking about the right in international law of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in former Palestine also known as Eretz Yisrael - the biblical and ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.

Also a no show whilst both the PLO and Hamas want to kick the Jews out of their existing homes. Until Jew-hating is dead your plan hasn't a chance of getting up. In the meantime do you want the killing to continue or do you seriously want to see it ended.?

I see no other way forward at the present time other than direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan.

Perhaps your efforts to create secular democratic states might be better addressed to the 57 Islamic states around the world. Have you ever expressed your thoughts on the issue by writing to the thousands of Islamic web sites flourishing within each of these countries spewing out their Jew hatred daily?

David Singer wrote: Another large step forward by you - no state between Israel and Jordan for the recently created post-1950 Palestinian people.

Dear David,

The fact is that they exist now. How recently they were created doesn't matter.

You wrote:

A secular democratic state is a great concept in theory - but totally irrelevant when talking about the right in international law of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in former Palestine also known as Eretz Yisrael - the biblical and ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.

Dear David,

Because one's ancestors may have lived in a place a long time gives one no rights to claim land. Mussolini called the Mediterranean Mare Nostrum because of the Roman Empire. Israel exists because the military is able to hold the law. Irredentism is not a feature of international law.

you wrote:

I see no other way forward at the present time other than direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan.

Dear David,

You have a lamentable lack of imagination.

You wrote:

Perhaps your efforts to create secular democratic states might be better addressed to the 57 Islamic states around the world. Have you ever expressed your thoughts on the issue by writing to the thousands of Islamic web sites flourishing within each of these countries spewing out their Jew hatred daily?

Dear David,

I don't approve of Islamic states. By setting up a Jewish state where such creature as Ovadiah Yosef spout hatred we are imitating them. I don't expect them to listen to me, but I hope Jews might have better sense and work for a secular, democratic state. Israel unfortunately is becoming more like its enemies.

Dear David,

<<Based on the current polical view of the current Government in Israel - I do not believe the West Bank is regarded as a burden by the majority of Israelis.>>

Sadly true, unless you add the 20% Arab-Israelis, mostly politically inactive, to the 40% who do regard the West Bank as a burden.

Israel got drunk on power in 1967 and it is quite common for an alcoholic to believe that alcohol is not their problem.

It is nearly impossible to look down violently upon strangers (Arabs/Palestinians) without it spilling into other areas of life: go ask Israelis whether they see domestic violence, road-rage, bullying in schools, the level of crime, etc. as a burden - but many of them fail to see the link. Moreover, the new generations born with the occupation take it for granted, know not otherwise and have no other way-of-life to compare with.

If the world wants to help Israel, then it should not offer them more drinks. Unfortunately, Israel has the USA as ally, which are drunk themselves on power.

<<Israel will not be ceding its claims to all of the West Bank in any negotiations. This has been made abundantly clear in the two offers made by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008 by Governments of different political persuasion to the current government.>>

Stupid Arabs! They could have accepted the offer and then, later, ask for more!

Anyway, I don't care for them, I care for the Israelis, and it's their loss rather than a reason to rejoice in blaming others.

<<Negotiations are a must to settle the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank between Jews and Arabs. The incompetent Palestinian Authority has thrown away the opportunities afforded to it over the last 19 years.>>

Both sides are incompetent - that's why they could benefit from strong intervention by the world telling them: "You over here on this side and you over there on that side, no arguments!"

To david f

It is important to establish when the Palestinian national identity was forged since the responsibility if any for accommodating that identity should not solely be the responsibility for Israel alone to deal with as is the current view.

Jordan has been part of the problem since 1922 and it must be part of the solution in 2012.

The right to reclaim - not claim - the land was granted by the unanimous vote of the League of Nations. This decision has never been accepted by the Arabs or apparently yourself. It has been the single factor leading to the conflict remaining unresolved today.

Maybe in your opinion my imagination is lamentable. However it is realistic.

Bringing some two million Arabs under Israeli jurisdiction makes no sense. Bringing those two million Arabs under Jordanian jurisdiction is the kind of imagination I have espoused for a long time.

Somehow I feel the time is fast approaching when this viewpoint will prevail.

Failure to do this over the last 45 years has brought much suffering to both Jews and Arabs.

Dear David,

The Balfour Declaration and the unanimous vote of the League of Nations to create a Jewish state was made without consulting the wishes of the people who were living on the land. I don't regard a vote which disposes of land that people are living on without consulting the people living on that land as a legitimate vote. If that vote was legitimate then a vote to abolish the state of Israel would also be legitimate.

Dear David,

Like me you are a Jew living in a country with a Christian majority. How would you feel if that country decided to be a Christian state? I know I wouldn't feel good about it. Would it be acceptable to you?

That's an excellent argument, David F., I actually love it!

But I wonder what you think of the following situation:

Christians come and buy your house and all your other real-estate for a price you are glad to receive. Your tenants then complain that this would evict them from their homes, so the Christians settle a nice financial deal with them too, then the government complains that this purchase will disrupt whatever (say it would chase away the birds and make the sea more salty), so the Christians arrive at a generous financial settlement with the government too, then some nomadic squatters complain that the purchase would deny them their habitual roaming, so the Christians settle with them on a sum the like of which they never saw before.

And then they want to declare a Christian state on their own, quaternal-paid, property.

This may be stupid on their behalf, but should you have any objection?

Dear Yuyutsu,

In the case you mentioned once I have sold my house I have no more say about it than anybody else has. Whatever happens to that property subsequently is something I may not like, but I have absolutely no greater say in what happens than only other person. Legally one may sell a property with certain restriction as to the use of that property if the buyer agrees to those restrictions. However, if I make an outright sale with no restrictions then whatever happens is simply out of my hands.

August of last year I visited Lake Placid, NY where my grandparents lived. I saw the house where I had many happy times as a child. I have no rights to that house. I can't go in it unless the present owner allows me to do so. Whatever sentimental attachment I have to the house does not translate to property rights.

David Singer mentioned reclaiming the land. A person has no right to the land because they or their ancestors may have lived on the land. The state of Israel has exactly the same right to the land of Israel as the government of Australia has to the land of Australia. They are the successor state of a government which had the military strength to take the land.

#to yuyutsu

You really are talking without any facts to substantiate your claiims.

Inactive Arab voters in Israel? There are 17 Arabs in the current Knesset 11 of whom are from Arab parties. Who could possibly be voting for them?

You also seem to overlook the fact that more than 90% of the West Bank was offered to the PLO in 2000 and 2008 and knocked back on each occasion.

Not unsurprisingly these offers are not going to come round again - like the missed opportunities in 1937, 1947, between 1948 - 1967.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

# to david f

Comparing Australia to Israel is like comparing chalk to cheese.

The essence of Israel's establishment was based on the recognition of the Jewish people to reconstitute their national home in Palestine - 0.01% of the captured Ottoman Empire.

Parallel with this development 99.99% of the captured Ottoman territory was set aside for Arab self-determination.

The Arabs wanted 100% and have never been prepared to settle for less. Until they do both Jews and Arabs are set to suffer.

Dear David F.,

<<The state of Israel has exactly the same right to the land of Israel as the government of Australia has to the land of Australia.>>

I'm afraid it's a mixed bag. I totally agree that a person has no right to the land because they or their ancestors may have lived on the land, but SOME of the land of Israel was paid for in full during the first half of the 20th century, occasionally up to 4 times over: to the Effendi feudal owner, to his poor farmers who were leasing the land, to the corrupt Turkish-Ottoman government and to the nearby Bedouin tribes who used to seasonally graze their sheep there.

One should also consider the fate of Jews expelled from Muslim/Arab countries and forced to come to Israel.

I do not share their view that having a Jewish state is a good or wise idea. Long term it is a trap, but apparently that's what they want and if it's their own land then I can't tell them not to. In any case, living under Muslim rule is not a practical option (especially if you value breathing and are not a fish), so for the time being, given the nature of the neighbours, I must support a non-Muslim (rather than explicitly Jewish) state within Israel's legitimate area.

Dear David,

There are currently 9 Arab MK's (not 17): perhaps you counted the 4 Druze members among them, but these mostly belong to Jewish/Zionist parties. Overall, Arab vote to the last Knesset was 53.4% compared with 64.7% overall, yet many of them traditionally cast blank papers as informal votes.

<<You also seem to overlook the fact that more than 90% of the West Bank was offered to the PLO in 2000 and 2008 and knocked back on each occasion.>>

Overlook? On the contrary, I just bemoaned those stupid Arabs who failed to grab the opportunity.
Also, you CAN make a horse drink by drowning it - Israel didn't need to talk with the Palestinians and ask for their "kind permission" to leave, they could simply leave!

Dear David Singer,

I think it's an excellent comparison between Australia and Israel. It is not a choice between chalk and cheese. It is a choice between Camembert and Brie. There would be no state of Israeli if the Israeli armies had not been able to hold off assorted Arab armies. If they had not been able to do that all the claims to the land would have been for naught.

The inhabitants who were on both lands were not consulted in either case.

The difference is that there are Arab states surrounding Israel which Israel must be strong enough to hold off while Australia has no bordering states.

We Jews have survived for a long time. One factor in our survival was our dispersal. If there were not many Jews outside of the boundaries of Israel at the time of the revolts of Bar Kochba and the Zealots our history would have ended right then. It seems utter folly to persuade more Jews to concentrate in Israel.

Yuyutsu wrote:

“SOME of the land of Israel was paid for in full during the first half of the 20th century, occasionally up to 4 times over: to the Effendi feudal owner, to his poor farmers who were leasing the land, to the corrupt Turkish-Ottoman government and to the nearby Bedouin tribes who used to seasonally graze their sheep there.”

Dear Yuyutsu,

Of course Jews have the right to land they have bought and paid for. However, I was not referring to that. I was referring to the state of Israel which controls much more land than that which was bought.

You wrote: “One should also consider the fate of Jews expelled from Muslim/Arab countries and forced to come to Israel.”

Dear Yuyutsu,

They were forced to leave. They were not forced to come to Israel. Israel wanted them. They should be compensated for their losses.

You wrote: In any case, living under Muslim rule is not a practical option (especially if you value breathing and are not a fish), so for the time being, given the nature of the neighbours, I must support a non-Muslim (rather than explicitly Jewish) state within Israel's legitimate area.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Living in some Muslim states (eg Turkey and Morocco) is a viable option. However, in most Muslim states it is not. How do you achieve a non-Muslim state? Do you ethnically cleanse the Muslims already there?

Continued

continued

Yuyutsu wrote;

There are currently 9 Arab MK's (not 17): perhaps you counted the 4 Druze members among them, but these mostly belong to Jewish/Zionist parties. Overall, Arab vote to the last Knesset was 53.4% compared with 64.7% overall, yet many of them traditionally cast blank papers as informal votes.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It is good that non-Jews have representation, but it is bad that the parties represent various religious and ethnic groups. Democracy rests in part on the ability of the voters to change their opinions as parties change their platforms. In Australia voters may vote Labor, Liberal, Green, National etc. and change their votes depending on the programs the various parties put forth. However, if we had parties based on the various sectarian divisions a Catholic is in general not going to vote for the Uniting Church party regardless of its program.

Yuyutsu wrote:

You also seem to overlook the fact that more than 90% of the West Bank was offered to the PLO in 2000 and 2008 and knocked back on each occasion.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We don’t know the details of the offer. However, if it was a genuine offer Arafat was probably afraid of his skin. If he had accepted the offer he could have been afraid of being assassinated as Rabin was by a Jewish fanatic and Sadat was by a Muslim fanatic. People who work for peace in the Middle East are risking their lives.

Dear David F.,

<<They were forced to leave. They were not forced to come to Israel. Israel wanted them. They should be compensated for their losses>>

Actually, some WERE forced to come to Israel, others not, most preferred to come to Israel anyway once forced out of their homes, others went to France. None were compensated.

<<How do you achieve a non-Muslim state? Do you ethnically cleanse the Muslims already there?>>

Certainly not, but you try to limit your area to where non-Muslims live (to the extent security allows) and not allow further Muslims to come in (as long as they remain hostile).

Arab-Israelis have more choice at the ballot than Australians. It's a pity so many of them either don't vote or drop a blank paper in the ballot, otherwise they could have changed the face of Israel. Most who do vote, are divided between two Muslim parties and two communist parties, but a few do vote for other Israeli parties. Many do change their votes between elections, but usually at the behest of their clan leader.

Yes, fear of assassination is a constant companion in the Middle-East, but when Arafat wanted, he did sign controversial agreements despite all. We may not know ALL details, but we do know a lot about the offers Arafat received. They included getting 97% of the West-Bank area, the other 3% in land ceded from Israel proper, a symbolic return of a 5-digit number of refugees, compensation for the others, a free-access bridge/tunnel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and free access to the holy Muslim places in Jerusalem.

Overall, you must understand that the realities of war are quite different than the reality Australians are used to, and the greys exceed the black-and-white. Trying to apply democratic standards in the midst of primitive hatred and fear is Don-Quixotic.

After the 1967 war Israel was quite willing to give the conquered territory back. They asked for recognition and a treaty. The Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967 was issued at the conclusion of the 1967 war. An Arab League summit convened in the wake of the Six-Day War. The summit lasted from August 29 to September 1 and was attended by eight Arab heads of state. The resolution called for: a continued state of belligerency with Israel, ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, an end to the North Yemen Civil War, and economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. It is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the "Three 'No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it."

At that time there could have been peace if the Arab countries had been willing.

The visit to Israel of Anwar Sadat after the 1971 war resulted in a peace treaty and recognition of Israel by Egypt. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt. Although they are not friendly they still maintain embassies and cooperate to some extent.

Feeling that there was little or no chance for peace with the other Arab countries Israel built settlements in the occupied territories. This was a violation of international law since victorious nations are allowed to have an army of occupation but are forbidden to build permanent civilian settlements.

There has been cooperation with some Arab states. Egypt has cooperated with Israel to the blockade of Gaza. When Israel bombed the Osirak reactor in Iraq the planes flew over both Jordanian and Saudi Arabian territory apparently with the consent of those governments.

The Arab states have changed their policy of ‘no peace, no recognition, no negotiations’. Saudi Arabia has made peace overtures to Israel. Netanyahu refuses to either curtail the settlements or have peace talks with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. He may fear assassination. When Israel was willing to make peace the Arabs weren’t. Now the situation is reversed. If both sides simultaneously wanted peace there would be peace.