In my opinion, if we were not militarily involved (19 Bases, 3 billion
$ in arms to Israel per year, we would not be a target of Radical
Middle Easterner's terror attacks. Do you agree and if so give me all
the reasons our governmemt says we have to be in the Middle East and
your opinion of what would happen if we were not engaged militarily
there. I am imagining an American Foreign Policy that states we will
gradually withdraw, negotiating as we do and making it clear that we
are looking foreward to a Middle East, uninfluenced be foreign
countries, a situating that to my reading has essentially never
existed throughout their over 4000 years of recorded history.

We have to be in the Middle East so as not to piss off Jewish voters.

Pushing Nelson's Antisemitic remark aside (who views the "Jews" as
some conspirative group, voting as a block, whether it would be Noam
Chomsky or Alan Greenspan), I wouldn't think that the hostility to the
US (or to the West) is solely because of the US involvement in the
Middle East or because of its support in Israel.

There are many "reasons" for the type of terrorism that is now applied
against the United States (and the United States is attacked as the
most powerful nation in the West, and maybe also as one less perpared
against terrorism). These reasons are cultural, economic and
structural, and would have existed even if the United States took a
complete isolationist policy, which sounds like what you're proposing.
It is naiive to think that the current wave of terrorism is directly
related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, or even that it would stop if
there would be a peace accord between Israel and its neighbours (or if
Israel cease to exist). This expresses total lack of understanding of
both radical Islam's ideology as well as its history. If anything, we
could look at the American policies in Afghanistan in the 1980s, as
some key to the issue - but then again, we would be totally wrong if
we hang the whole reason for this wave of terrorism on this support of
certain parties in the Afghan War.

To your isolationist ideas, I could say two things. First of all, that
isolationist policies don't work. Not for a country that would like to
have a place in this world's politics - maybe for Albania. And
secondly, since it is not America as a foreign power that is attacked,
but as a democracy, with a thriving capitalist economy (and in this
case, not versus a socialist country, but versus some sort of
"Islamic" economy), with certain values and interests around the
world, the attacks would not cease.

You may not like it - it sounds to me that you basically belong to the
peace camp, and are looking for ways to improve the situation. But the
solution to solve these problems is more progress in the Middle East -
less support for the radical Islam from the population - and that
could be done only with lots of involvement for peace and progress.
Now, you may claim that the current American policy does not promote
peace and prosperity for the Middle East, but looks for very narrow,
short-termed, interests. However, the fact remains that the roots of
terrorism are not in the US involvement in the MidEast.

My comment was certainly not anti-Semitic.  I am very fond of Jewish
people.  My comment was directed at U.S. politics and politicians. 
Bibble-thumpers seem to think we need to protect the Holy Land.  I am
a lapsed Catholic and that last comment was anti-Christian.