The article I just posted was in response to Bobert's statement, "the parties who are closer to the bullets also have constituencies that need to be massaged" (referring to the Arab states I mentioned at the end of Part 1 of this thread – Syria and Iraq – whose governments' leaders and representatives attending an Arab summit conference sanctioned Palestinian attacks on Israelis, military and civilian, undercutting their supposed endorsement of the Saudi Arabian peace proposal).

Bobert, it sounds to me as those aren't "constituencies" being massaged with the pro-intifada rhetoric by those Syrian and Iraqi government officials; they're the Syrian and Iraqi governments themselves. As was said in the Washington Post article that you mentioned in Part 1, "Such rhetoric clashed with a strategy outlined by moderate Arab officials going into the summit: that the prospect of a settlement with the Arab world as a whole, offered directly to the Israeli public, might reinvigorate peace discussions and lead to a change in the get-tough policies followed by Sharon."

Unless the moderates of all the parties involved in negotiating a peace settlement – Palestine, Syria, Iraq. Iran, other Arab states, Israel and the US – can persuade the more extremist leaders of their governments to be more flexible, any hope for peace will be a vain hope. Right now, it seems as if Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah is the only top dog who doesn't want a dogfight.