Likewise, Americans capable of political sympathies for American Indians would be also capable of politically sympathizing with Palestinians, I think. Yoshie
At that point you would have debunked your own argument. If the prospects of Palestinians for reclaiming some non-trivial part of their land parallel those of Native Americans, then they might as well forget it.
The Israeli's have the better of this argument, analogizing their policy to the U.S. in Afghanistan. Your implicit burden is debunking the case for retaliating for 9-11, something you have attempted but not succeeded at.
J., it's not quite true to say Palestinians had done "nothing" to Jews. For an important space of history, Muslims drove out, killed, or forcibly converted Jews (and Christians) where they could. Christians did the same. The early settlements were subject to violence by the Arab majority as well, a factor that encouraged similar acts by the Jewish settlers. You could say both sides were justified in terms of their national aspirations; but this sort of violence always has arbitrary, unjustifiable effects on innocent individuals.
I don't think you can base a politics on unwinding history by fifty years or more. Once you start, why not go back to when the Jews were ascendant in the Holy Land? Ten or twenty years regression would mean the West Bank could be reserved for Palestine. Two states is the only plausible narrative. One people driven by oppression to impose on another, also oppressed.
If socialists were right to counsel abstention during the 'imperialist' WWI, on the grounds that workers on both sides would die for alien, capitalist interests, it seems like a good analogy to the ME. The point is not to choose a 'side.' The correct line is peace. The best defense is not a good offense. The enemies are those who make war, in descending order of importance according to descending levels of violent acts: the Sharon-Peres Govt, Hamas, Al Aqsa, Hezbollah.
mbs