The problem with deciding what's the best for the rest is, maybe your rights are not their rights and what you put at top of your agenda is not so high in theirs. Generally, when you give people prosperity & dignity, even a defeat with dignity, they don't tend to hold a grudge. Let's just think about this phenomenal Muslim Brothers: Under which conditions did they emerge? What was breeding them? If you have given the people of Nile, what would they choose? Try to improve their lives (40% of them are living under $2/day. - They are still in Tahrir, because they don't have *anything* to loose, except for their lives and they themselves know that their lives don't worth a penny. - Army or police can kill them anytime anywhere for any or no reason.) So, if you were living in these conditions, would you be thinking about opening war against your neighbour? Assume these poor people managed to put Muslim Brothers as the sole rulers with a Sheriah regime, and do you think Muslim Brothers can open war against Israel next day? Or next year, or next decade, before fulfilling these people's requests? Don't forget, these people have nothing to lose. Nothing at all. Anything they gain is recorded on the plus side of the balance sheet. And when they have the prosperity & dignity in a decade, will any of them, except for a handful extremist zealots, which unless they aren't Presidents/Prime Ministers of powerful countries, harmless. At the end, if you raise your fist against your neighbour with sour relations, you'll receive fist. If your raise your hand for a handshake, hardly you'll receive a fist, as other neighbours won't want another fight in the neighbourhood.
We want Iran cooperation, not meddling, Gulf Arabs tell Kerry (Reuters)
from the article: The Middle East does not need stability