One thing too much of the left and center have in common: they seem to think that political compromise/moderation is aimed at *your enemies*, to persuade them The center naively treats this as possible (e.g. romanticization of Senate bipartisanship), the left as impossible. But of course to the extent Zohran is placating anyone with his particular version of moderation/compromise on Israel, it is the much quieter and more numerous group of normies who are *not* rabid Islamophobes or hardcore Zionists, but who have a variety of normie beliefs like “I don’t like Israel” and “I don’t like Hamas” held simultaneously. Yes, dedicated political Zionists will call literally anything and everything antisemitism as it suits them—you can never satisfy them, and this is making “antisemitism” an increasingly toothless accusation—but most normal people still think antisemitism is bad, and have their own internal map for when something/someone crosses the line. That line might not be where the left would like it to be, but Zohran is clearly trying not to trip over it. Not the line his *enemies* draw, which is impossible to be on the right side of, but the line his *voters* draw, which is something more ambiguous but also more possible. None of this is to say you have to like or agree with his mode of compromise so far, but it is important to understand the idea behind it and the audience for it. You’re never gonna persuade anyone to take a different tack if you can’t understand the motives for this one.