A) The US hasn't attacked Iran nor North Korea, not because they are well armed, but because little to nothing could be gained by such an action.

No. The fact that Iran and North Korea can bite back really _IS_ a major factor (not the only one) in explaining why the US has not attacked them.

In fact, the main reason the US is so adamantly opposed to Iranian and North Korean nukes is precisely because it contrains our military options. You have to be a lot more careful when you are considering bombing someone who can respond with nukes. Euphemistically speaking, it limits your options.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked because neither side wanted the home territory of other. The US didn't want Soviet territory, and the Soviet Union didn't want US territory.

This is pure crap. MAD worked because both sides wanted to go on living.

In the Middle East, Hamas wants to rule everything west of the Jordan river, AS IT'S FIRST STEP. It wants all land that was ever under any kind of Islamic control to be ruled by Hamas. Places like Spain.

Please Google "Hamas accepts '67 borders"

Israel have a level of conflict far different than the US vs Iran or North Korea.

I wonder how eager Israel would be to attack Gaza if the Gazans had nukes? Or even a credible military capability that could cause serious damage to the IDF and/or Israeli cities? It might not stop them, but then again it might. Israelis pay an extremely small price for their incursions and bombing runs.

If no suicide bombers or rockets are launched from Gaza, there will be no Israeli military response, so keeping weapons out of the hands of Hamas is important for peace.

What do you consider the blockade, if not a military response? This was instituted when Hamas won the elections, not in response to any attack on Israel.

When two people claim the same land, there is going to be conflict, and that conflict will exist until one side gives up the claim to the land.

This could be the only nugget of wisdom in your entire post, and it is very likely that you don't even understand just how profound it is. Yes, this conflict is driven by who will get access to scarce resource, primarily land and water. The resource pressure gets worse all the time due to expanding population and economic growth.

While it's not impossible to envision a peaceful solution, the most likely future for the region is escalating violence.

If there are no rockets coming out of Gaza, or if there are many fewer, that is a positive for the peace process, mostly because the peace process doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell if there are rockets falling on Israel, and certainly if there are a lot of them. This is a political reality, whether or not it's convenient to acknowledge.

Well, sure, it's a positive step in that lowers the capability of one of the sides to inflict violence on the other. But the rest does not follow. If the US stopped supporting Israel and brought significant pressure to bear, then the rocket fire would not be as germane. Israel would have to listen. As long as the US supports the Israeli position, then they can demand a stop to all rocket fire. Take away American support, or turn it around and start pressuring Israel, then the equation changes.

The weapons that are material here are the rockets, pure and simple.

Until they are not. In the past, Israel demanded the termination of suicide bombings, which could start up again. Perhaps Hamas will find some other way of striking at Israel, which Israel will demand be stopped.

What Glenn and most people here are ignoring is that, even ignoring the monumentally counterproductive history of their use against Israel, the Palestinians have no need of arms. They already possess a far more powerful weapon, which scares the bejesus out of the Israelis- demographics. Israel has every reason to settle this dispute if they don't want the comparisons to the apartheid state to grow with the relative numbers of the Arab Palestinians, already by some estimates greater than the Jewish population. All arms do is give them a reason- and a moral justification- not to.

This is total crap. Demographics do not lead inexorably to settling the dispute. If Israel is armed, and the Palestinians are not, the Israelis can just keep the Palestinians off the good land and take the region's water for ever. Unarmed Palestinians will just have to accept that arrangement, or else die trying to change it.

The apartheid argument is already being made. As long as Israel has American support, they won't change. Only the withdrawl of American support and the application of American pressure can make the Israelis change their tune.

One final point - whether or not the Palestinians are armed matters not a whit as to whether or not the Israelis are morally justified in maintaining the occupation and denying the best land and an equal share of the region's water to the Palenstinians.