A legal and political strategy to shut down the Global Intifada would do better to focus on "Palestiniansim" than "antizionism." "Pro-Palestine" is invariably on or over the border of legality or agitating to be so. And there are very good reasons why it has to be. There is also
a question of political theory here. Opposing antizionism gets us focused on Jews and their rights and freedoms; opposing palestinianism gets us focused on the question of sovereignty and international order. In each case a different set of alliances and tactics follows. But this
in turn forces us to choose between a "bottom-up" and "top-down" understanding of politics: liberalism vs. sovereignty, freedom vs order, which in turn implicates both American political traditions and traditions of Jewish engagement with power. I lean toward the tradition of
building alliances with those in power over allying with the "disenfranchised" (which leads to one taking on their coloration), both in general but now in particular; and building alliances with powerful actors is better precisely because, since you need to have something to
offer those in power you are obliged to build independent power bases yourself, like Jordan Hirsch proposes with his notion of a Jewish sovereign wealth fund. Such a fund could in turn fund various legal strategies that would benefit many others aside from Jews. Jews being pushed
out of the left and now being at least nudged out of the right makes this a perfect time to separate from both and prepare to engage directly with companies and organizations participating in the remaking of US sovereignty. There is a path to creating a new center here.