If only America had more citizens like him! Preferably a whole lobby of them, promoting the "correct" view of Israel's best interests.

I think neo-conservative conclusions should be objected to on the merits of their conclusions solely, not on the basis of their ethnic or even ideological origination.

Your comment "But assuming high position in society and maintaining a program of separate corporate identity; that's when it gets dicey. I wouldn't want Walzer or Wisse as president of Harvard."

is more dicey still (dicier?).

If you are saying that someone without administrative experience is not qualified for an administrative position, or disqualified for other criteria directly related to the performance of the position, that is a different beast.

"Anti-Zionist, integrationist Jews like myself, along with Zionists who opposed a Jewish state, said 60 years ago that creating a Jewish state would create endless violence in the Middle East. We were right about this, and we got rolled by the Israel lobby, back then."

Israel came into existence as a big state (if New Jersey is a big state.), because of the historical persecution of Jews in Europe. (I don't say this as a neo-conservative invocation, but as a description of the actual context.)

As an original ideological movement, as a utopian immigration movement, as a haven from genocide.

Between 1945 and 1948, there were one million + refugees of genocide in Europe. In most locales they faced inhumane persecution in their prior home areas (Poland, Russia, Hungary, Rumania, even France) which were still viciously and consistently anti-semitic.

The US, Great Britain, Australia, South Africa each increased their quotas of allowable immigration from nill to insignificant. Noone invited refugee Jews en masse. Noone actively had the plan or means to facilitate reconstruction of Jewish community in Europe (assimilated or separated).

For objective reasons and for the yearning from their desparation, Israel was the needed refuge.

While the tragedy of the Palestinians is very real, to conclude at all that this was a creation of "the Israeli lobby" more than of a need, strikes me as cruel.

I believe that to form a progressive view of the history, and of prospects for the future, its necessary to study the history, and bear the apparent incompatabilities of the two +++ narratives simultaneously and happily.

There is no turning back history, turning back reality. There is no "I told you so. We were right, you were wrong." It amounts to a revisionism.

There is sensitivity to others' needs and goals in the present, and imaginatively and assertively working to realize those, including in the case of Jews and Israelis, making room and even helping.

I like the principles of the Saudi proposal. The proposal intentionally contains ambiguities that were necessarily ambiguous to pass the Arab League consent. Those ambiguities (the meaning of "just solution for refugees") will have to be sorted out and imaginatively constructed to form a mutually acceptable application.

Its good work to attempt to realize, for Israel, for Palestine, for the region. Including diplomacy at home, in one's community, Jewish and American.

Oy vey.

Ironically, one suggestion of some neo-cons is of a free-trade zone in the middle east, not all that different from the European Common Market that existed prior to its frost-heavey transition to European Union.

I would suggest if that is a goal, then the path to that goal is not unlike the path of driving the 160 miles to get from Boston to Provincetown when for birds (or planes) its only 50 miles.

You can't get there from here.

Better to actually enjoy the ride on the route that does exist, as irrational and with as many obstacles as there are.

Trust-building:

Cessation of terror on civilians as a means, by ALL parties including states and militias (in process of negotiation among Palestinian factions, not yet confident policy and practise, both are confused as to what is actually defense)

Establishment of a permanently unified Palestinian government and military/police under a permanent single command (in process of negotiation, not yet confident policy and practise)

Development of all the institutions of self-governance and self-reliance (in process with lapses among the Palestinians, as well as material administrative obstacles placed by Israel – infrastructure, water, movement of citizens, trade paths, consistent principled law).

Formal definition of Palestinian statehood (Whatever temporary or contested status of borders. Syria is still a state, even as it contests its borders with Israel)

Normalization of relationships including exchange of ambassadors and other diplomatic relations. (The seat of government would probably be within 3 miles of each other. They could walk and visit. Not unlike walking from Brooklyn to Manhattan, or Brookline to Cambridge.)

Then after a decade of relative acceptance, with all important conflicts resolved by discussion not by military, and the inherent intimacy of being close neighbors with much interchange, federalism may be known as best.

Israel can be the Jewish state in Israel/Palestine, and Palestine the Palestinian one.

Politically, most likely in 25 years, as the majority of Israelis are civil in orientation and a large minority of Palestinians (not religious), a civil coalition government would probably be the dominant coalition arrangement (not Likud, not Hamas).

They and all those describing the states in solely religious terms (Jerusalem as anchor of Islamic Waqf, or conquering and driving "them" out as indication of messianic era.) would object and seek to disrupt.

What keeps it from happening? Neo-religion (religion that is described as the historical 'prophetic' sequence, rather than "keeping MY commandments"), neo-left ideology that acts forcefully (threats of boycotts, description of identity – not actions or policies – as "racism" for example).

They are soluble like a husband and wife fighting, or an addict, decides that they will do what it takes to create a better life in the present and future.

The husband and wife may decide to:

1. Divorce (not possible with Israel and Palestine short of ethnic cleansing of either population)

2. Separate (not be in each other's faces, while they still retain responsibility to parent for example)

3. Work it out and learn to coexist, if not to love

When you revisit anti-Zionism, I hope you acknowledge that there are tensions and inconsistencies with EVERY option, including the "anti-Zionist" speculation.

And, that the choice of a responsible person is to assist in the least abusive choice, and in the least abusive manner of implementing that choice.

I think the two-state solution is clearly that choice currently, as it would invite civil war to have a single state with a single parliament, with majority determined by a percentage point or two, with winner take all with potentially vicious consequences to the minority, whomever.

A partioned society in the environment of severe distrust is the lesser of two tensions.

I am still a Witty even though my uncle on my mother's side is adamently literally anti-Arab. (He was an intelligence officer in North Africa during WW2, interpreting German communications between nazi brigades and Arab sympathizers.) You know my family, so you know the range of views that Witty's can hold, and still be family.

I frankly took some offense at your equation of my views with any perspective that enabled Israel Beitanyu party.

I hope that you don't feel similarly about being an American, or a Weiss, or a Jew, that you can't be a loved part of a community because of either "your" or "their" views.

Zionism contains a wide range of supporters, from the socialist left to the fascist right. Even those that describe themselves as post-Zionist (Uri Avnery for example) still reside in Israel and bear the benefits of it.

The important political distinctions that I would make are between sensitivity and insensitivity, more than between left or right, or Zionist vs anti-Zionist or post-Zionist.

I thought that was your stand as well.

By the way, tomorrow, April 9, is the anniversary of Deir Yassin.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=341600202419569830&q=deir+yassin+remembered&hl=en