As for why Saudi Arabia is less of a threat than Syria, it is simple. The Saudis do not consider keeping the middle east violent and politically unstable to be a national policy objective. The same can not be said of Syria or Iran.
Terrorism needs two things; an ideology that justifies it and social unrest that makes it attractive.
It is certainly true that Saudi money is contributing to the ideology. But the fact is ideology doesn't actually need money. It just needs believers willing to spread the word. Yes, we'd all be better off if we cut the money supply off, but that alone will never completely work.
Syria and iran, on the other hand, are contributing to the social unrest. If you're going to launch a rocket into a shopping mall to kill civilians and provoke a counter attack, somebody has to give you the rocket. They don't grow on trees. And they are infinitely more attackable than an idea.
Syria is more of a problem than Saudi Arabia vis-avis terrorism because it is Syria that is supplying things that it would be impossible for the terrorists to get otherwise. Syria is maintaining the social unrest that makes the ideology attractive.
There was order in the concentration camps too. That didn't make them islands of peace.
Your claim that we supported and funded al-Queda is flatly wrong. I suppose it's not your fault; there were a lot of people very busy spreading that particular lie. I assume you heard it and believed it in good faith. But you were lied to and there is not a shred of truth to it.
Al-Queda was funded by bin Lauden and others like him. Remember that the U.S. did not fund every mujaheddin group in Afghanistan. Just because he was fighting the Soviets at the same time does not mean the U.S. was supplying him. There were actually only something like 7 groups that got U.S. support, and none of them were Arab groups.
I agree with you that we should not fund any Islamic extremist rebels in Syria. But I will once again ask you, what makes you think all rebels in Syria are extremists? What proof do you have of that rather extraordinary assumption? And should there prove to be moderates in the rebel camp, why should we not fund them?
You are again talking about "providing options for peace." Again, that's all nice and easy to say, but what does that mean in actual practice? Anybody can mouth platitudes. What meaningful steps are you proposing?
You do realize that from that territory (at least as claimed by the Syrians) the Syrians would basically be able to take out Israel's water supply don't you?
If you don't think anybody forced Israel to occupy the West Bank and Gaza, you desperately need to review the history of the Israeli-Arab wars. I will remind you that the West Bank was originally Israel's, taken by Jordan, taken back by Israel, and then Jordan renounced any interest in it. I will also remind you that Gaza is under Palestinian control and if they'd stop shooting rockets out of it, the Israelis would probably stop going in there.
Internal problems are indeed a problem. What evidence do you have to suggest that it is the main problem?
Seeing as how I have repeatedly named others (particularly Iran) as funding those groups, I have no clue in the universe why you would bother asking if I think they are the only ones.
I agree that a secularist is far more likely than a fundamentalist to accept a Jewish state in Israel but:
A) Given that one way or another Assad isn't likely to win this rebellion, it doesn't matter if he is likely to accept it or not
B) Yet again I ask: What makes you think there are no secular rebel groups?
Egypt and Israel already have a formal peace treaty.
Jordan has renounced claims to the West Bank (which, incidentally, wasn't even its to begin with). This renunciation has a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the Arab populations in Israel are but pawns for their neighbors. The Jordanians do not actually want the "Palestinians" in their population.
In Jordan's defense, the Palestinians have quite a history of destabilizing whatever nation is hosting them. Lebanon used to be a peaceful neutral ground until they let them in. Jordan had their fair share of trouble with them as well.
The only international territorial dispute is the Golan Heights between Israel and Syria. And that is a major reason why Syria makes sure the PLO or Hezbollah or whoever else wants to lob rockets into civilian targets in Israel gets them.
You neglect to mention that Iran and Syria always reach out to extremist groups in the Palestinian population whenever it looks like the peace process might actually go somewhere and give them weapons to go blow something up and derail the talks.
Yes it's certainly true that Israel has made its fair share of moves that have angered the Arabs in the country. Not only the settlements, but other economic political issues as well.
But to simplify it all down to the settlements is just plain silly.
When you say the Palistinians, are you referring to a different set of Arabs
than the Arabs living in and around Israel?