I probably should have given Blankfort's use of the Averny quote a bit more context. Here's a typical example:
(http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html) "In particular, Chomsky ignores or misinterprets the efforts made by every US president, beginning with Richard Nixon, to curb Israel's expansionism, to halt its settlement building and to obtain its withdrawal from the Occupied Territories.[10]" (followed by the Averny quote).
If this is what one feels is stopping these alleged efforts to get Israel out the territories, then the sort of activism we need is clear - to support our presidents, like Nixon, BushesI and II, and so on, in their efforts to stand up against the "collective power of US Jewry".
As far as tactics, Blankfort actually writes that: "By accepting Chomsky's analysis, the Palestinian solidarity movement has failed to take the only political step that might have weakened the hold of Israel on Congress and the American electorate, namely, by challenging the billions of dollars in aid and tax breaks that the US provides Israel on an annual basis. " (http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html)
I don't see how this makes any sense at all. There is no contradiction whatsoever between agreeing with Chomsky's view of the role of the Israel lobby and arguing for such positions. But it seems to me like the logical outcome of Blankfort's position is actually as I wrote above, to support our presidents as they fight off the Israeli lobby. I'll pass on that.
And yes, of course the Israeli lobby has influence, and of course it can have an effect in elections. But it is a big leap to take that as an explanation of the "special relationship" between U.S. and Israel.