How soon before nations in the Middle East erupt into a full blown war with Israel? Will it go nuclear?

The answer depends greatly on a cynical equation of national interests. - Syria: cares mostly about getting back the Golan Heights (this is for reasons of national honor of recovering something lost in the 1967 Six Day War, as well as for strategic reasons). Next, they care about recovering their position of leadership in the Arab world.

Finally, they care more than anything else about not losing another war against Israel, as this time it is quite likely that Israel would make a point of hunting down the leaders of the Baath regime there and getting them out of power so they do not make more mischief. Syria has an extensive stock of chemical weapons, as well as medium range ground to ground missiles to deliver these. This is sufficient deterrent to make Israel prefer not to start a war against Syria without ample provocation, but is not enough to allow the Syrians a free pass if they start a war.

Notice that the plight of the Palestinians is not a Syrian national interest. It is used cynically by the Syrians to their advantage when they feel that this serves their interests, but it is not something that truly motivates them - Egypt: The national interest of the Egyptians is to maintain their status quo vis a vis Israel. They have nothing to gain, and much to lose by starting or joining a war against Israel.

They are a major recipient of US foreign aid, and if they were to start a war against Israel they can count on the US Congress forcing the administration to stop that aid. This equation would change dramatically if the Muslim Brotherhood opposition (which is outlawed there) was to succeed in ousting the current regime. In such a case they might well not care too much about the interests of the Egyptian people as opposed to an extremist pan-Islamic set of interests which would very likely include a new war against Israel.

- Jordan: Much as the plight of the Palestinians is of utmost concern to Queen Ranya, and by extension to her husband the king, Jordan is not strong enough to survive a real war against Israel. They are also more closely aligned with the West than with extreme Islamic viewpoints, and as such are not likely to feel that war would be the solution for their real concerns and outrage. - Saudi Arabia: The Saudis have never been ones to participate directly in a war.

While they have some significant assets, those are used exclusively in defense of the kingdom and the regime. - Turkey: While the government of Turkey is led by an Islamic party, the real power in the country is at least shared, if not outright controlled, but the military. They know that the Turkish national interest is not at all tied to the Palestinians.As such, much as they deplore and are outraged by what they perceive as Israel's unjustified aggression, and some would say crimes against humanity, the Turkish military is unlikely to consent to go to war with Israel for the Palestinians.

- Lebanon (a.k.a. Zbullah): This is the closest the Palestinians have in the region to a real ally. However, they are controlled by Iran.

The Iranians need to preserve the threat against Israel as a deterrent against Israeli or US attack against the Iranian nuclear program. As such, they are not likely to allow zbullah to attack Israel over a Palestinian matter, unless it somehow served the greater Iranian regime's interest. From the above you can see that it is not likely that anything Israel does to the Palestinians, short of real genocide which has never actually taken place, would be likely to cause the existing regimes in the area to declare war on Israel.

It is only if an extremist group was to topple an existing Arab regime, or if one or more of these regimes actually felt that they must go to war or else they would be toppled by their own populace, that the above statement would be likely to change. Having said all that, this does not mean that Israel will not pay a price, and possibly a significant one, in the international diplomatic arena over the recent debacle with the "aid convoy" raid. Israel has taken severe diplomatic damage over its offensive in Gaza a few years ago, as well as over the damage to the Lebanese infrastructure during the second Lebanon War a year earlier.

Some of that damage came to light in how Western governments reacted to the Dubai assassination matter, kicking out Israeli Mossad agents from Israeli embassies. This is a very rare thing for allied governments to do, and shows their displeasure with Israel. The raid on the convoy of ships from Cyprus to Gaza, had it ended with no injuries and no deaths, would not have been a propaganda problem for Israel.

Now that 9 or 10 of the convoy passengers were killed, matters have changed. It will likely be a matter of weeks or months before we see the full price Israel will be forced to pay. However, the price is not likely to be one of war.

Given that war is not likely in my opinion, the likelihood of a nuclear war is even more remote. With the possible exception of a few nukes the Syrians might have been able to procure from North Korea (not likely, but remotely possible) and the nukes held by Pakistan, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, if any, is Israel.No Israeli government has ever acknowledged having a nuclear arsenal, due to a policy of "nuclear ambiguity". However, there have been sources that state Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, with many mountable on Jericho intermediate range missiles.

This does not escape any of Israel's potential enemies, which makes a nuclear confrontation in the Middle East extremely unlikely.

This is not a conflict between two religions. It is a family feud. Both the Jews and the Muslims claim Abraham as their ancestor.

Jews trace their lineage from Issac; the Muslims through Ishmael. To further complicate the family in-fighting, after Mohammed's death, there was a family squabble to determine who would be his successor - the origin of the main 2 branches of Islam are the Sunni branch that believes that all of the first four successors and their heirs --rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. The Shiites,believe that only the heirs of one of these men, Ali, are the legitimate successors.So now we are seeing a feud between 2 families and one family that is feuding within itself.

And unlike the family fights in our family where the worse that can be done is the silent treatment or domestic violence affecting only a few people, these families have access to nuclear weapons, So, how many family fights have been resolved by doing the grown-up thing and sitting down to clear the air?

Interesting and exciting question. Thanks for asking. I will try to learn from the other answers.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.