In any conflict in the MidEast, U.S. troops will not be allowed to enter via Israel and no Israeli troops will be allowed to fight alongside U.S. troops. Israeli power is useless beyond the borders of Israel (though you could include the occupied territories if you're so inclined).
Then I guess a certain reactor in Iraq did not get bombed by Isael.

There, that's a factual counter to your statement about the limitations of the Israeli military.

That means I've countered one of your "facts" that you've tried to use to invalidate my position.

Every time the Israelis piss off their neighbors, I don't think it reduces the amount of tension with the U.S.
Now, this is what is called a "strawman". You are correct that it does not reduce the amount of tension with the US. But, as I never claimed that it would, your statement is invalid in this discussion.

Since bickering seems to be an inherent feature in the region, the U.S. doesn't have to do a whole lot.
Not a lot. Just ensure that there isn't a SINGLE nation capable of unification within that region.

And which nation is it that you think should take over all the rest? Is Osama the natural leader of this idyllic united country? The only thing that seemingly unites these people seems to be their dislike of Israel.
Cute, you use the word "idyllic" when I never said it would be.

No, it probably wouldn't be Osama. More likely it would have been Saddam but that was before his invasion of Kuwait.

Besides, any effort to unite Arabia would (a) be bloody - Millions of lives lost; (b) likely non-democratic (similar to Hitler's effort to unite Europe); and (c). disruptive to every economy on the planet.
I never said it wouldn't be.

Personally, I think the third point is the main reason the U.S. tries to prevent the concentration of power in a single despotic rulers hands.
If you will expand that from "despotic rulers" to "anyone except the US", I will agree with that.

Pure opinion which is not backed up by the obvious facts.
Whether it is backed up or not is your opinion. Suffice to say that the facts do not contradict it.

The support of Israel has a negative impact in our relations with the countries that supply us oil.
I will counter this claim by pointing out that we are not paying more per barrel than any other non-mid-eastern country nor are any of them limiting the amount of oil we can buy. If there is a "negative impact", it doesn't seem to affect anything.

Any forward strategic capability provided by such a proxy is more than outweighed by the problems that no coordination can be made in any military adventure.
Only if you look at it as if we needed to coordinate the US and Israeli militaries. We don't.

As for strategic capability, I will again point out that Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant. Now, if Iraq had managed to acquire nukes back then, the region would be quite different today.

That seems to meet the criteria for "strategic".