This is all moot anyway.

Peace is impossible.

--State-sponsored and mosque sponsored Jew hatred permeates all aspects of society among Israel's neighbours. Nazi comparisons can be overdone but the bile that spews forth from the Arab media is reminiscent of Julius Streicher.

--Israel's neighbours will not tolerate what they regard as a Jewish enclave in the heart of Dar-ul-Islam for one moment longer than they have to. If they ever feel they have the military upper-hand they will pounce.

From the Israeli perspective it's a case of "Damned if I do and damned if I don't so I may as well do what I need to defend myself."

I do not always agree with the actions of the Israeli government but it's not me in the firing line.

One Holocaust is enough.

On a somewhat different note I do wonder how much the US cares about the Middle-East. Thanks to new technology North America is almost energy independent. If there's another Arab oil boycott as in 1973 it will harm America's rivals more than it harms America.

China in particular has become the world's largest oil importer. Much of that oil comes from the Middle-East.

My feeling is that the main interest the US has in the Middle-East is that in the Gulf it is the US Navy that is sitting on one of China's most important supply lines.

So since leaving Gaza Israel has "...paid a high price ever since in terms of loss of life..."
And yet from http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp
we read that between 29/9/2000 and 31/10/2012 4,676 residents of Gaza were killed by Israel and 145 Israelis were killed in return.
And the damage to their respective infrastructures? Gaza has been mostly destroyed, including sewer works, water treatment plants, electricity generating plants, schools, homes, and hospitals. In Israel? A window or two, maybe a parking lot somewhere.
The penultimate sentence in this article has one too many words. If we omit the second word in, "All else that the world will be subjected to during the President's visit will be nothing more than hot air and ceremonial posturing." we have a far more accurate prediction of this coming song and dance routine.

The result of unilateral disengagement, without Abbas/Hamas agreement, is obvious in the casualty statistics as documented by Halduel. Were the agreement of the aboved protagonists obtained it may have been different. But what are the chances of ever getting a unified agreement from the above, wherein all occupation were to cease? The PLO were offered 98% of their demands and still rejected any agreement.

Stevenlmeyer, I think you have introduced a fascinating element to the future geopolitical paradigm of the region, watch with interest.

Prompete wrote:

>>Stevenlmeyer, I think you have introduced a fascinating element to the future geopolitical paradigm of the region, watch with interest.>>

For decades the United States' main interest in the M-E was to keep the oil flowing. Peace between Israel and the Arabs was a priority because a war had the potential to disrupt the flow as happened for a while in 1973. At the time there was much talk about the "Arab oil weapon."

But from the US perspective that weapon has largely been neutered. Oil and gas production in North America is roaring ahead. North America is almost self-sufficient in energy and new regulations on energy efficiency in vehicles will further strengthen the US position.

On the other hand the fact that the US Navy, by far the most powerful navy the world has ever seen, controls China's most important supply line gives the US a powerful strategic lever.

The one nightmare scenario is that if Israel goes down much of the M-E becomes radioactive dust. Therefore it is still in everyone's interest – and I include Saudi Arabia and China in this - for the US to keep Israel strong enough to see off any military threat without the need to resort to nukes.

Is there a lesson here for Australia?

I'm not suggesting Australia embark immediately on a nuclear weapons program.

But should Australia take a leaf out of the Japanese book and develop an indigenous technology base that could enable us to deploy nukes within a short time should the need arise?

Do small isolated countries need a nuclear ace in the hole in an uncertain world?

Break out the champagne! Finally the Singer has said something with which I agree!

"...the President's visit will be nothing more than hot air and ceremonial posturing."

Never truer words spoken, Singer. And they apply to most of the actions by the U.S. during many, many decades when it pretended to be an honest broker!

With friends like the U.S., who needs enemies?

News of Obama's visit:

>>President Obama thaws icy past with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in first day of Middle East visit, disclosing move to extend military aid>>

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-thaws-icy-israel-netanyahu-article-1.1294611#ixzz2OBBwIzHx

Not exactly mere "hot air and ceremonial posturing." By the looks of things Obama is re-affirming the US commitment to Israel's security in quite substantive ways.

I keep coming back to the questions I posed in my previous posts:

(1) Is an Arab-Israeli peace still a priority for an America that is almost self-sufficient in energy?

(2) Is there a tacit understanding among most powers with an interest in the M-E, including Saudi Arabia and China, that it is in THEIR interests that the US keep Israel so strong that it need never again contemplate using its nuclear strike force as it did briefly in 1973?

(3) What are the lessons in this for Australia?

The second question relates to Israel's near death experience in 1973. Most observers agree that Israel was on the point of going nuclear when the tide began to turn in its favour. Since then it has been the policy of successive US administrations to ensure Israel is strong enough to deter any conventional attack without the need to resort to nukes.

In this respect Obama is following in the footsteps of all his predecessors since 1973. Keep the conventional arms flowing.

Of course a nuclear Iran MAY upset this delicate balance.