I am heartened by Glen Greenwald, who is calling attention to polling which indicates that 70% (?) of Americans want the US to remain "neutral" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But imo, we still have a long way to go since there is an evident failure to acknowledge that Israel habitually uses disproportionate force, which warrants reprimand rather than neutrality.

*What's missing from this whole analysis is the bald truth of the fact that the state of Israel is an extension of the United States. It is a proxy military state which we fund for the express purpose of serving and protecting American interests in the Middle East. Not PUBLIC interests, mind you, but CORPORATE interests. Which explains why our politicians are generally indifferent to public opinion, whether it be Iraq, Wall Street, or the Gaza Strip. Yes, the "Israeli lobby" influences foreign policy as Greenwald suggests, but the interests of that entity are influential because they are seamlessly congruent with global corporate interests.

*In brief, the public interest has been entirely subsumed by corporate interests. And for most of the 20th Century, and the first decade of the 21st Century, this slogan succinctly sums up the overriding corporate interest: IT'S THE CRUDE DUDE.

AIPAC works for a foreign government

AIPAC represents the position of the Americans who support it -- a right constitutionally guaranteed under the petition clause.  The fact that that opinion concerns a question of foreign relations and that you don't agree with them doesn't make them traitors.

it threatens. If a congressman doesn't vote for subsidies for Israel, or simply expresses some criticism, AIPAC will get its supporters to finance a rival candidate

Loads of issue groups are 'squeaky', meaning they make a lot of noise.  I regularly have to argue with my chapter of the Sierra Club, because they do so much more lobbying of legislators than educating their members about legislators, and they always support safely elected members, but never take on targeted members who have voted badly.

Many of the European Jews that went there in the late 40's were folks who had been forced out of their homes (or not allowed to return) AFTER the war ended.  Many Polish Jews came home from Nazi work camps to be killed by Poles on their return.  The US, Latin America, and Western European countries wouldn't take them.  Stalin was already killing Jews in Russia.  So they largely went to Israel.

In 1948, when the original UN lines were drawn and Jerusalem was on the Arab side, all of the Jews were driven from the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and their homes were taken.  All of the synagogues and every historic site was razed to the ground.  Jewish gravestones were used to pave the roads.  Jews were displaced and completely denied access to the holy sites in Jerusalem.

I mention all of this not to start a suffering contest (my co-religionists generally consider us to be the all-time winners--I give the prize to the Native Americans, and think the Kurds give us a good run as well).  I just want to make the point that your "equitable" solution to give back to people what they lost is not going to be the same as someone else's "equitable" solution.