-----------
It was a good essay and struck the right tone---reserved and yet sympathic. I've watched a lot of video on Finklestein. I don't remember when I looked into Dershowitz---probably when Finklestein was denied tenture. Was Elena Kagan involved somehow in this? I pretty much agree with Chomsky---with some additions.
I know a movie review isn't the right place but there is another way to go after the Israel v. Palestein conflict, and score some hits against the US rightwing and necons.
It was suggested in Hannah Arendt's work somewhere, but I've forgotten where. It is the concept of the separation between church and state and goes back to Spinoza.
It was a big mistake to use a secular state definition of Jew as a citizen, following the theological or reglious concept of blood line. The serious practical problem turns on the question of citizenship and civil rights. The blood line concept sets up to a virtual certainty there would be a second class citizenship of non-Jews, who would always be subject to exactly the kinds of oppressions that, for example German Jews were subject to before German emanicpation (1871?).
The German or more generally European historical background behind the blood line concept is interesting because both the early Zionists and early Aryan theories of race come from the same social history in time and place.
If I was counsel to Finklestein or Chomsky, I'd say, start over in political philosohy and history and re-conptualize your arguments in terms something like the above. It is a better place to work than trading holier than thous insults and screaming. Let's try thinking for a change.
Here is a pretty good link with a lot of background on civil rights, church and state. It's labeled Jewish emancipation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_emancipation
There's lots missing, specially the political history. For example the question of citizenship came up in the French Revolution. The radicals won on the concept of a citizen is one who swears an oath of allegience to the Republic. Then the problem turned on `loyalty' and treason which was exploited during the Terror. Behind this facade was a strong anti-clerical movement from the enlightenment philosophies and the traditional concept of France as a Catholic monarchy. Somebody in the National Assembly brought up the `Jewish Question', The radical secular wing won the vote on inclusion. Jews had to swear an oath to the Republic like everybody else (including women) over age---eighteen or twenty-something. There was a lot of back and forth over Jews, the status of women later that I won't go into.
So I think history and philosopny and its applicationn to political nation states is the place to go and have arguments. The central benefit is emphasis on matters of fact (history), which can be verified and rational argument.
But this benefit depends on honest brokers, of which as far as I can tell there are few available in the opposition.
CG