The Conversos Learned That 500 Years Ago

Imagine the conversation. A progressive Jew, uncomfortable with settlement policy, pained by Palestinian suffering, decides to establish his credentials with an anti-Zionist colleague. “I’m Jewish,” he says, “but I’m critical of Israel. Are you OK with that?”

Not enough — you have to oppose Zionism itself. He does. Not enough — support BDS. He does. Not enough — affirm the right of return. At each stage he complies. At each stage the bar resets just beyond where he’s standing. The conversation ends only when he runs out of things he’s willing to say against his own people — or crosses that line too.

Every Jew who has tried this knows how it goes. The question is why it always goes this way.

A Pile-On You Can Never Win

Anti-Zionism, as it functions in Western universities, NGOs, and progressive spaces, is not a policy position. It is an accusation structure.

Israel is simultaneously charged with colonialism, apartheid, genocide, and ethnic supremacism — drawn from incompatible moral frameworks that don’t cohere with each other. They don’t need to cohere, because they aren’t functioning as arguments. They’re functioning as a pile-on.

Knock down the apartheid charge — Arab Israeli citizens, judges, members of Knesset — and the response isn’t “fair point.” It’s a pivot to genocide. Demolish the genocide charge with demographic data and it pivots to colonialism. The animosity rides above the argumentative chaos. Each charge is a vehicle, not a cause. The conclusion came first; the evidence........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)