danielbelitch : A valid question and a good response!

1. Not all wars are started by the security of a nation being threatened by another nation. Some wars are fought over territory, money, or because they want to go too war. Look at the Aztec's periodic wars; they mostly fought other American tribes so that way they could capture the enemy and sacrifice to their Gods. One could argue that the Crusades were created not for the sack of a response to the threatening spread of Islam; but other factors to cause the war (Religious territory, Ending the periodic infight between rival Christian Kinghts, etc). So your question about my strict stipulations in my scenario is a valid question; but I was trying to go for a non-threatening cause for starting a war.

2. I don't think that Israel would be a prime target without US support. Since Israel has a good amount of support from the EU, Asia, and some Arab countries; I think that Israel would be able to hold its own if they are attacked. As to your response that we would be against Israel by not heling them is a very good question. Israel would in fact be angry by the fact that the United States is not sending anymore aid, so relations would sour with Israel. However I think Israel knows that if in the event that they are attacked; they would need the United States support/aid when the time comes; so I don't think the US-Israeli relations will never be completely distroyed. Now to the question regarding the Middle East; I don't think the Middle East can afford to come together and attack Israel. Since Iraq is still recovering, Afghantistan is in no shape to go too another war, Syria is in a civil war, Egypt is still creating its government, Libya is also creating another government, and Yemen is looking like its in a civil war again. Now I believe that Turkey and Jordan are not against Israel so we can rule out them as against the Israel side. Now Sudia Arabia would be interesting since I believe that if Sudia Arabia would face economic termour since the United States would in all likely cut off oil trade with the Saudis. Will be interesting to see what happens thou, but I think we will see mostly "terrorists" and "Jihadists" groups attack Israel.

3. I didn't know that the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict was over Jerusalem. I thought it was mostly over the Palestinians saying that the the United States, England, and other European nations for stealing Arab land after the defeat of Hitler; and giving it to the Zionist Jews as a "piety present" (which one could argue that its true). Your correct that the conflict won't end until one side is wiped out, which like you said won't happen.

Still a good response post!!

danielbelitch :
Unified middle east attacking israel:
They cant agree on the name for the oceans or what form of islam is correct. I cant imagine such collaboration.
And they are dependent on wester money, attacking a western backed nation, chaos.
And theyre weakened by civil unrest.
Plenty of stupid people want one side wiped out. The muslim leaders would have troubling blaming there failures on zionists when they'd killed them all though.
Oldschool41 :
The very reason israel negotiated for peace after sweeping victorys, they needed more munitions to invade further but the west refused. They were told make peace or you'll be in trouble when you run out of ammo.
Thats the united kingdom, not england, that stoped being a country 305 years ago.
And yes, israel is western dependent.
Originaly, the uk sent jews to the land we owned, palestine, because there was a prophecy god would return when his lost sheep returned and acceptead him.
Judgement day by converting jews in there homeland.
We stoped them because the muslims got angry, so the jews got angry. We made a plan, half the land to the jews, half to the muslims. The jews said yes, the palestinians refused. In hindsight, a bad move since theyre after less land now.
The uk got frustrated, left, and the UN took over.
Israel got all thd land, except some muslim bits that were given to various muslim nations, leaving the palestinians fairely pissed off.
And to top it off that last land was nabbed by israel in various conflicts.
And thats the farce in a nutshell.
The main problem with jerusalem is its a major city in the origins of islam, christianity and judism, hence why it bounced around so much.
Its ironic those are the 3 most conflicting religions since christianity followed off judism, and islam off christianity.
Incidentaly, jews were being sent to settle in israel before ww2.
And it wasnt a present, it was 1, to fullfill a prophecy, and 2, because honestly, europe and the us didnt want the displaced jews pouring into there land, so they threw a bone and watched them fight over it.

America does seem to be in Israel's back pocket.  Obama basically had to back down to Netayahu a year or so ago around a demand that Israel will pull back to it's pre 1967 borders to accommodate Palestinian statehood.  Contributions to presidential campaigns and lobby groups play a part in that too. 

But also, the fact is, the American political class wants to retain a democratic country in the Middle East.  It puts pressure on the undemocratic regimes in the region if there is a neighboring country with the active participation of it's population in the political process.    Parts of American society seem to be keen to transport American values to other parts of the world.  This includes the political system.  Doesn't seem to be the case when dealing with South America though (how many legally elected presidents in Central and South America have been bumped off by the CIA?).  So does Israel deserve foreign aid?  Probably not.  Will it retain it?  Yes!  America won't stop contributing to the maintenance of Israel.