I find it remarkable, Stephen, that Liz's complex, nuanced account of both the political and personal scope of the Israel Lobby and American Policy Conference could be reduced to an anti-identity-politics lecture. Liz was clear that Ashrawi was being interviewed at the time: "There were several others going towards her as well and then there was a microphone and a light and I saw she was being interviewed." I doubt that anyone would consider it appropriate for Liz to burst into the interview and interrupt with comments on how she has been personally moved by Ashrawi's work. Of course, yes, later in the paragraph she writes, "I didn’t get a chance to speak to her, and then I thought it was appropriate not to. I’m sure she didn’t need to hear how a Jew has changed." It seems clear to me that her decision not to speak to Ashrawi was primarily determined by the fact that Ashrawi was in the middle of being interviewed; then, the more she thought about it, she decided against speaking to Ashrawi altogether because, as a Jew--and, more specifically, as a former Zionist, as someone taking responsibility for her politically privileged position--she thought it was more appropriate to listen rather than speak. After all, the need for listening seems to be one of the primary themes of her essay: "At the one-day conference last Friday, when I listened to Mearsheimer speak, I remembered my inability to listen when I was a Zionist. Now my head feels more clear and open to the multiple narratives instead of the dominant Zionist one. Zionists spend so much energy refuting and defending that they have very little energy left to listen." It's convenient to respond to this essay with a glib sermon on PC culture. It takes more work, instead, to listen.