Klein will find a knife in his back regardless of how much he courts and soothes Jew haters. The only question is when and what size the knife will be.
“His argument, stripped down, is that Israel made this happen. The occupation, Gaza, the settlements, the casualties — reasonable people drew reasonable conclusions. Anti-Zionism spread because Israel gave people reasons to oppose it.”
But of course Klein *is* right, Eli.
Israel’s mere existence, and its actions defending its existence (once it became a successful, mostly capitalist country), are completely sufficient for “people” to oppose it. 🙄
You are an evil straight white Christian (or Jewish) male capitalist member of the patriarchy for suggesting that anything but the simplistic oppressor-oppressed lens is the correct way to look at everything in the world. It is obvious that the evil white capitalist Israelis are oppressing the BiPoC without-agency Palestinians.
So Israel was attacked several times, and Egypt refuses to reclaim the land that the Gazans occupy - and built a wall to keep them from entering Egypt; so what? Israelis are the evil oppressors. They should be fine with being killed or “going back to where they came from”; after all, those countries would welcome each and every one of them back with open arms.
You are so evil, you probably don’t even support Hamas’ murdering, raping, torturing and baby-killing in order to globalize the intifada and deliver a one-state solution from the river to the sea.
While Ezra Klein cannot “reasonably” be accused of being an evil straight white Jewish male capitalist member of the patriarchy, so he is excused.
I think a major issue that your article omits is what Israel is and what Zionism actually is. It was quite understandable (though I think it should have been either in an unpopulated area or created by expelling pro-Nazi enclaves in Europe rather than where it is) to wish for a Jewish homeland in 1948. It was understandable in Stalin’s time and even during the Cold War. In 2026 we have a state that privileges one group over another for characteristics neither can control. Judaism has been pushing its community toward a place where they need to hide in bomb shelters. Are Jews in 2026 or any recent era (and I mean post WW2) hiding in bomb shelters in NYC or London or Paris, etc? So the question is, based on logic and not some attachment to “the land” is Israel good for anyone?
This is a thoughtful and clarifying piece, and I think you’re right to push back on any account that treats the current reaction to Israel as purely a function of recent events. The interpretive frameworks shaping younger American opinion—particularly the settler-colonial lens—were clearly in place well before Oct. 7. Gaza did not create them; it activated and amplified them.
But what struck me, reading this alongside Ezra Klein’s argument, is that the two may be less in tension than it first appears.
If Klein is right about the reality on the ground—that a single sovereign power now governs the space between the river and the sea in ways that look increasingly permanent—then your point about pre-existing frameworks becomes even more consequential, not less. A narrative already waiting to be confirmed has now encountered a reality that appears, to many observers, to confirm it.
That is where the stakes rise.
Because the danger for Israel is not only that it is being misunderstood, but that it is being understood through a lens that is rapidly hardening into consensus—especially among younger generations in the very democracies that have historically underwritten its legitimacy.
I also think your most important insight is this: restoration does not require a final-status solution, but it does require a visible reorientation. Not perfection, but direction. Not resolution, but a credible refusal of permanence.
Where I find myself lingering, though, is on the question of time. Political shifts—both in Israel and in the United States—may not move quickly enough to arrest the reputational drift already underway. And once a country crosses a certain threshold in global perception, reversal becomes far more difficult.
So perhaps the synthesis is this:
Klein is right to insist we name the reality that has emerged.
You are right to insist we understand the frameworks through which it is being judged.
But taken together, they point to a more sobering conclusion: that Israel may now be operating in a world where both the facts on the ground and the interpretive climate are moving against it at the same time.
That is not an argument for despair—but it is, I think, an argument for urgency.
I see. What I’m saying is that the set of facts that debunked the allegation had surfaced very early in the case, well before the video was made and released to a member of the press.
Starting from the beginning:
1. A physician examining a prisoner discovered an injury that he said, based on his preliminary examination, seemed consistent with sexual assault. He raised his concern with the relevant authorities.
2. The advocate general promptly charged and detained some of the prison guards.
3. Within days, those familiar with the prison situation noted that the prisoner was found to have smuggled in an object.
4. A more extensive examination determined that the nature and precise location of the prisoner's injury was not consistent with sexual assault, but was caused by the presence of a smuggled object.
5. Not surprisingly, the falsely accused and their colleagues resented the rush to judgment. As the results of the forensic investigation gained traction in the public, that rush to judgment became a major embarrassment for the advocate general's office.
6. That's when they spiced together video to present an incriminating narrative. And, sure, what is seen in the video looks ominous. But it turns out that the shield cover is standard search procedure to maintain the prisoner's privacy.
The main set of debunking facts is forensic. But there's also plenty of circumstantial evidence. A lot of this information came out within days of the original allegation, though "credible source" suppressed it because it didn't fit the narrative.
Much later, a further scandal erupted when the advocate general tried to destroy her phone. She is still being protected by the very powerful attorney general. Eventually, journalist Gadi Taub was able to piece the entire story together in an exposé for Tablet:
Israel exists. The question of the need for Zionism was answered with a thunderous yes by the Holocaust.
Debating Zionism now is just eliminationist hatred and bigotry. Hence the need for delegitimizing and dehumanizing antizionist libels. And double standards.
The nation of Israel lives all over the world, but its beating heart is in our ancestral homeland, which we will defend with or without Ezra Klein or Hasan Piker’s approval.
Zionism, begun by Theodore Herzl in response to the atrocities of WWII, was always an abandonment- of Jews and then others - an attempt to create a special place for the privileged while millions of Jews were exterminated. It was always a sick - though understandable given the circumstances - deal made for survival. The role of Zionists in the US has always been to support Washington's use of Israel as a bargaining chip in its positioning for world domination. And what always gets left out in the story is the millions of Jews who have always believed - and still do - that never again for the Jews, needs to mean never again for anyone. I am a proud Jew, but I will never be a Zionist.
Consider the source: Hasan Piker grew up in Istanbul, the son of a powerful father involved in both finance and politics with close ties to Erdogan. Hating Israel and America and supporting terrorism against them were ingredients in his infant formula. Similar to Mamdani’s upbringing. They are both committed to importing the antisemitism of the Muslim world to America and unfortunately have been successful at spreading that heinous virus here.
Consider the source: Hasan Piker grew up in Istanbul, the son of a powerful father involved in both finance and politics with close ties to Erdogan. Hating Israel and America and supporting terrorism against them were ingredients in his infant formula. Similar to Mamdani’s upbringing. They are both committed to importing the antisemitism of the Muslim world to America and unfortunately have been successful at spreading that heinous virus here.
I appreciate the distinction you are trying to make and I think it’s a good distinction. I am against specific crimes of a specific government not the idea of the nation. I think anti-Zionism gets used as a catch all term because anti-Israeli government sounds more antisemitic. The whole situation saddens me. Long conflicts do end sometimes but it takes both sides making compromises that are uncomfortable. I hope one day we will see peace.
I wonder how many useless hollow articles like these on ,criticizing Israel‘ and giving „good advice“ there will be while none is calling the Arab and Muslim mainstream what it is: pure SHIT that calls for total destruction. No one needs „Islam“ and all its derivates. Just destroy that shit. And if it can“t be destroyed, just leave us alone !!!! You have 57 Rogue states to go to. Vanish to there and shut up.
Klein will find a knife in his back regardless of how much he courts and soothes Jew haters. The only question is when and what size the knife will be.
People came and took their houses at gunpoint. That was the experience. It's ongoing.
“His argument, stripped down, is that Israel made this happen. The occupation, Gaza, the settlements, the casualties — reasonable people drew reasonable conclusions. Anti-Zionism spread because Israel gave people reasons to oppose it.”
But of course Klein *is* right, Eli.
Israel’s mere existence, and its actions defending its existence (once it became a successful, mostly capitalist country), are completely sufficient for “people” to oppose it. 🙄
You are an evil straight white Christian (or Jewish) male capitalist member of the patriarchy for suggesting that anything but the simplistic oppressor-oppressed lens is the correct way to look at everything in the world. It is obvious that the evil white capitalist Israelis are oppressing the BiPoC without-agency Palestinians.
So Israel was attacked several times, and Egypt refuses to reclaim the land that the Gazans occupy - and built a wall to keep them from entering Egypt; so what? Israelis are the evil oppressors. They should be fine with being killed or “going back to where they came from”; after all, those countries would welcome each and every one of them back with open arms.
You are so evil, you probably don’t even support Hamas’ murdering, raping, torturing and baby-killing in order to globalize the intifada and deliver a one-state solution from the river to the sea.
While Ezra Klein cannot “reasonably” be accused of being an evil straight white Jewish male capitalist member of the patriarchy, so he is excused.
And correct.
How do you not understand all of this?!?
I think a major issue that your article omits is what Israel is and what Zionism actually is. It was quite understandable (though I think it should have been either in an unpopulated area or created by expelling pro-Nazi enclaves in Europe rather than where it is) to wish for a Jewish homeland in 1948. It was understandable in Stalin’s time and even during the Cold War. In 2026 we have a state that privileges one group over another for characteristics neither can control. Judaism has been pushing its community toward a place where they need to hide in bomb shelters. Are Jews in 2026 or any recent era (and I mean post WW2) hiding in bomb shelters in NYC or London or Paris, etc? So the question is, based on logic and not some attachment to “the land” is Israel good for anyone?
This is a thoughtful and clarifying piece, and I think you’re right to push back on any account that treats the current reaction to Israel as purely a function of recent events. The interpretive frameworks shaping younger American opinion—particularly the settler-colonial lens—were clearly in place well before Oct. 7. Gaza did not create them; it activated and amplified them.
But what struck me, reading this alongside Ezra Klein’s argument, is that the two may be less in tension than it first appears.
If Klein is right about the reality on the ground—that a single sovereign power now governs the space between the river and the sea in ways that look increasingly permanent—then your point about pre-existing frameworks becomes even more consequential, not less. A narrative already waiting to be confirmed has now encountered a reality that appears, to many observers, to confirm it.
That is where the stakes rise.
Because the danger for Israel is not only that it is being misunderstood, but that it is being understood through a lens that is rapidly hardening into consensus—especially among younger generations in the very democracies that have historically underwritten its legitimacy.
I also think your most important insight is this: restoration does not require a final-status solution, but it does require a visible reorientation. Not perfection, but direction. Not resolution, but a credible refusal of permanence.
Where I find myself lingering, though, is on the question of time. Political shifts—both in Israel and in the United States—may not move quickly enough to arrest the reputational drift already underway. And once a country crosses a certain threshold in global perception, reversal becomes far more difficult.
So perhaps the synthesis is this:
Klein is right to insist we name the reality that has emerged.
You are right to insist we understand the frameworks through which it is being judged.
But taken together, they point to a more sobering conclusion: that Israel may now be operating in a world where both the facts on the ground and the interpretive climate are moving against it at the same time.
That is not an argument for despair—but it is, I think, an argument for urgency.
I see. What I’m saying is that the set of facts that debunked the allegation had surfaced very early in the case, well before the video was made and released to a member of the press.
Starting from the beginning:
1. A physician examining a prisoner discovered an injury that he said, based on his preliminary examination, seemed consistent with sexual assault. He raised his concern with the relevant authorities.
2. The advocate general promptly charged and detained some of the prison guards.
3. Within days, those familiar with the prison situation noted that the prisoner was found to have smuggled in an object.
4. A more extensive examination determined that the nature and precise location of the prisoner's injury was not consistent with sexual assault, but was caused by the presence of a smuggled object.
5. Not surprisingly, the falsely accused and their colleagues resented the rush to judgment. As the results of the forensic investigation gained traction in the public, that rush to judgment became a major embarrassment for the advocate general's office.
6. That's when they spiced together video to present an incriminating narrative. And, sure, what is seen in the video looks ominous. But it turns out that the shield cover is standard search procedure to maintain the prisoner's privacy.
The main set of debunking facts is forensic. But there's also plenty of circumstantial evidence. A lot of this information came out within days of the original allegation, though "credible source" suppressed it because it didn't fit the narrative.
Much later, a further scandal erupted when the advocate general tried to destroy her phone. She is still being protected by the very powerful attorney general. Eventually, journalist Gadi Taub was able to piece the entire story together in an exposé for Tablet:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/viral-prison-rape-never-happened
Israel exists. The question of the need for Zionism was answered with a thunderous yes by the Holocaust.
Debating Zionism now is just eliminationist hatred and bigotry. Hence the need for delegitimizing and dehumanizing antizionist libels. And double standards.
The nation of Israel lives all over the world, but its beating heart is in our ancestral homeland, which we will defend with or without Ezra Klein or Hasan Piker’s approval.
Thank you for your clarity in words and viewpoint that are so important these days.
Zionism, begun by Theodore Herzl in response to the atrocities of WWII, was always an abandonment- of Jews and then others - an attempt to create a special place for the privileged while millions of Jews were exterminated. It was always a sick - though understandable given the circumstances - deal made for survival. The role of Zionists in the US has always been to support Washington's use of Israel as a bargaining chip in its positioning for world domination. And what always gets left out in the story is the millions of Jews who have always believed - and still do - that never again for the Jews, needs to mean never again for anyone. I am a proud Jew, but I will never be a Zionist.
Consider the source: Hasan Piker grew up in Istanbul, the son of a powerful father involved in both finance and politics with close ties to Erdogan. Hating Israel and America and supporting terrorism against them were ingredients in his infant formula. Similar to Mamdani’s upbringing. They are both committed to importing the antisemitism of the Muslim world to America and unfortunately have been successful at spreading that heinous virus here.
Consider the source: Hasan Piker grew up in Istanbul, the son of a powerful father involved in both finance and politics with close ties to Erdogan. Hating Israel and America and supporting terrorism against them were ingredients in his infant formula. Similar to Mamdani’s upbringing. They are both committed to importing the antisemitism of the Muslim world to America and unfortunately have been successful at spreading that heinous virus here.
You think that's never been tried? Huh.
I appreciate the distinction you are trying to make and I think it’s a good distinction. I am against specific crimes of a specific government not the idea of the nation. I think anti-Zionism gets used as a catch all term because anti-Israeli government sounds more antisemitic. The whole situation saddens me. Long conflicts do end sometimes but it takes both sides making compromises that are uncomfortable. I hope one day we will see peace.
A month ago, I wrote something similar on EK (from a different perspective) that you might find interesting.
"Talk to Me: Jewish Progressivism and the Politics of Regression": https://oferidels.substack.com/p/talk-to-me-jewish-progressivism-and?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I wonder how many useless hollow articles like these on ,criticizing Israel‘ and giving „good advice“ there will be while none is calling the Arab and Muslim mainstream what it is: pure SHIT that calls for total destruction. No one needs „Islam“ and all its derivates. Just destroy that shit. And if it can“t be destroyed, just leave us alone !!!! You have 57 Rogue states to go to. Vanish to there and shut up.
Well written.