I’m naive.

But not a Thomas Friedman “America can have a successful third party” naive. His naivete played out on his much larger world stage. Mine has stayed more localized. It didn’t drive my non-existent book sales.

Last July, the well known New York Times columnist was in between his various saving the world assignments (and pre-book tour) when he proclaimed that America’s political problems were so deep than we needed a new political start-up, called Americans Elect, to right America’s ship.

Friedman wrote, “Write it down: What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in. Watch out.”

I’ve watched.

They’re pretty much out. The “two party duopoly” is there for a reason: Stasis is powerful. Change is hard.

Which brings me back to my own naivete in believing I could easily go where few Jews have gone before—organize a diverse group of Jewish pro-Israel supporters to discuss their different views on supporting Israel, maintain civility, and try to find enough common ground that we could agree on limited goals.

So, on a weekday evening, quite unlike other weekday evenings, I reclined (and also passed on the bitter herbs, but that story is in my special holiday blog) and emailed an invitation to 45 pro-Israel Jews. By the next morning that single invite had birthed well more than the usual 2:1 opinions to Jews ratio of replies— including opinionated replies from several people who weren’t invited, but heard about this possible anti-Israel gathering from their reliable email sources, which, as in most cases, tend to be one or two friends of a friend of a friend. (Or Caroline Glick.)

Ron Paul (or his newsletter doppelganger) is better at constructing conspiracy theories than I am, but his spirit must infest those Likud Party coalition members who rarely, if ever, consider any new analysis of Palestinian leaders or their actions. Anything (disturbingly) optimistic is presented in its most unfavorable light.

Even that minimal light is extinguished when it’s sent into the RELIABLE TALKING POINTS black hole, a place where the glow kindled by good news is doomed to never escape the gravity of all the well-worn talking points — the ones that start with history lessons on the Palestinians’ perfidy and then wander through decades of reasons why peace can’t or won’t happen.

It must be a conspiracy.

What else could explain the cone of silence (other than the Get Smart “The Man From Yenta” sale on eBay) when Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal announced that Hamas had decided to switch tactics and accept peaceful means to end its struggle with Israel? Meshaal even accepted the idea of using the 1967 borders as the basis for a Palestinian state. Yet he was ignored and the offer was called unserious.

Meshaal’s statement is one outcome of Hamas’ quasi-merger, quasi-who- knows-how-this-will-work-out reconciliation agreement with Fatah. By one interpretation, Hamas’ acceptance of the reconciliation agreement means they also accept (without the internal political difficulties of publicly declaring it) what Fatah has already accepted in prior negotiations — an end to violence, Israel’s right to statehood, a Palestinian state along 1967 borders, and a very limited right of return for Palestinians who were displaced in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Even though Meshaal’s pronouncement came with oversized public baggage — no immediate recognition of Israel or renouncement of the option of an armed struggle — if Israel truly wants to jump-start a moribund peace process, why not focus and capitalize on the points of agreement? Certainly there are risks in pursuing an initially imperfect peace process. There are risks in negotiating with people you have been fighting with for most of your existence as a country.

But there are larger risks to Israel’s continued existence as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people if it continues to wallow in and reinforce the currently dangerous stasis. A recent demographic study pointed to the fact that, by 2015, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and Arabs located within Israel, will begin to outnumber Jews.

An Israeli threat.

She acts and critics attack.

Supporters defend.

It is a “Rinse, Wash, Repeat” haiku that works in whatever sequence you want to place your emphasis, especially if you don’t care whether you violate the rules of haiku or the rules of stasis.But Israel and its difficulties can’t be condensed to simple English imitations of Japanese haikus.

So let’s try imitation proverbs that nicely align with the imitation Israel-Palestine peace process.

Here’s the first:The enemy of your enemy may still be your enemy. (This is especially true if, like Israel, you have a fairly expansive definition of “enemies,” and a limited qualification standard for friendship.)

And the second: Your real friends may insist you change. (After years of entrenched behavior, they may want you to remember your dreams or imagine your own potential.)

Unfortunately Israel’s expansive definition of”enemies” crosses over into its qualification standards for friendship. Call it Israel’s “if you don’t live here, you have no right to criticize” friendship duty. Your role, should you wish to join the pro-Israel friendship club, is to always support Israel in public.

Should you disagree, that must be done privately or you aren’t a real friend: It’s a hostile world and Israel must, at a minimum, ensure unanimity among its base — the (sometimes literal) Occupy Israel supporters.

The stars of the Middle East’s longest running two state play features the reliably myopic Israeli and Palestinian leadership-amnesiacs and their supportive minions — always willing to remember what hasn’t worked and forget what has.

Forty four years of off and on Israeli and Palestinian negotiations, surrounded by 63 years of battles with neighboring countries and the militant wings of various Palestinian groups, have contributed to inelastic memories and perceptions. Changes are seen as illusory or unsustainable.

So even in the West Bank, where stronger and more moderate Palestinian political leaders have emerged, where those same leaders have clearly and repeatedly rejected violence as an instrument of policy, where the infrastructure is now seen by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations as capable of supporting a nascent Palestinian state, many Israeli leaders and supporters still cling to their corroded memory chips.

Representatives David Price (D-NC) and Peter Welch (D-VT) deserve accolades for theirCongressional letter encouraging President Barack Obama and Congress to work together to prevent cutting U.S. assistance to the Palestinians.

They correctly note that aid to the Palestinians is not a favor to the Palestinians nor is it something that should be withheld as punishment for their statehood efforts at the United Nations. Continued assistance is actually in the strategic interest of the United States, Israel and Palestine because it bolsters security and strengthens Palestinian governance.