How Much Is It Necessary to Hate the Jews?
A conjoint thought experiment about America’s preferred Jew
There is an old Jewish definition of an antisemite: someone who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary.
The joke works because we all recognize the absurdity of quantifying hostility. But the joke also works because we all recognize the transaction: there is a socially tolerated level of suspicion toward Jews, and the boundary is policed by the coalition, not by the Jew
It is a great joke because it concedes the base rate. Some dislike of Jews is understandable. Perhaps even prudent. Antisemitism begins only when the customer orders more than the socially approved quantity.
But the joke leaves behind a methodological problem. How much is absolutely necessary?
Years ago, when I ran a market research firm in Louisiana, we used conjoint analysis to answer questions people could not or would not answer directly. When Wm. B. Reily & Company of New Orleans wanted to know what shoppers would give up before they gave up Blue Plate mayonnaise, we did not hand them a questionnaire. Everyone wants everything when nothing has to be sacrificed. We made them trade.
Brand name at full price with a warranty? Or the house brand at half the price with none? Change one attribute and ask again. Recombine the elements enough times and the mathematics works backward. It tells you what each characteristic is worth.
I am not presenting a survey. No representative sample of Americans was forced to choose among alternative configurations of Jews. This is a conjoint thought experiment, and the reader is the respondent.
Construct two Jews who are identical except for one attribute. Put them inside an American political coalition. Then ask which Jew receives greater credibility, protection and permission to remain.
Start on the progressive left. Both Jews are Democrats. Both oppose Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Both support Palestinian statehood, condemn settler violence and grieve for children killed in Gaza. One nevertheless identifies as a Zionist. He rejects the genocide label and believes Jews have the same right to organize politically as every other American constituency. The other calls Gaza a genocide, describes Zionism as colonialism and treats AIPAC as foreign interference.
Which Jew is more welcome?
Now change one attribute. Let the Zionist condemn AIPAC. Does his political value rise? Let him accept the genocide label. Does it rise again? Let him say Israel should no longer exist as a Jewish state. Has he finally acquired the full civil-rights warranty?
Now perform the same exercise on the America First right. Both Jews support Trump. Both admire Israel’s military strength. One says Israel should defend itself without expecting American money or intervention. The other supports continued American military assistance and challenges Tucker Carlson’s stories about Israel, Jeffrey Epstein and Jewish influence.
Which Jew has greater value to the coalition? Remove the request for assistance. Stop criticizing Carlson. Watch the product’s value rise.
Every coalition has designed a Jew who confirms its innocence.
The warranty
Every political product needs a warranty. For the progressive indictment of Israel, the warranty is Bernie Sanders.
Sanders is not merely a senator who says Israel committed genocide. In September 2025 he published an essay on his Senate website titled “It Is Genocide,” concluding that “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” He is a Jewish senator who says it. Place the genocide accusation in the mouth of someone who also describes Jewish political organization as foreign control, and questions arise about antisemitism. Place it in Bernie’s Brooklyn accent and the product acquires Jewish certification.
“Bernie says it” does not prove the allegation. It assures the purchaser that accepting it cannot possibly reflect hostility toward Jews. Bernie is the extended warranty on the anti-Zionist product.
Sanders is entitled to his conclusion, and Jewish ancestry does not require political obedience. But Jewish ancestry does not establish the truth of a political accusation either. Sanders’s identity does more political work than his evidence. The coalition does not merely say, “A Jew agrees with us.” It says, “The right kind of Jew agrees with us, so the rest of you have lost standing to complain.”
That is the good-Jew transaction. It is also temporary.
Sanders still believes Israel has a right to exist. If the market moves further, he becomes a bad Jew too. The good Jew does not receive permanent acceptance. He receives a temporary license for as long as his testimony remains useful.
There is no good Jew
I expected this thought experiment to identify America’s preferred Jew. It did not. Every configuration fails somewhere.
The progressive Zionist fails because Zionism now carries the Gaza, colonialism and genocide attributes. The conservative Zionist fails because supporting Israel implies foreign commitments that America First increasingly rejects. The politically active Jew fails because Jewish organization can be redescribed as money, lobbying and foreign influence. The assimilated Jew fails because assimilation never prevented anyone from discovering Jewish control of banks, media, universities or government. The anti-Zionist Jew appears to perform better. But he is welcomed as a Jewish witness for the prosecution, and his utility depends on his willingness to testify against the other configurations.
There is no good Jew in this choice set. There are Jews receiving temporary discounts for useful behavior.
The old theory in new packaging
The growing Muslim, Arab and Palestinian political voice in America is legitimate, and among many younger Americans its account of Israel has displaced the traditional Jewish one. That is democracy. The double standard begins when that political organization is treated as authentic community participation while Jewish political organization is treated as purchased influence. If a large contribution to defeat a pro-Israel candidate is democracy, but a large contribution to defeat an anti-Israel candidate is AIPAC buying Congress, the variable is not money. It is who is spending it.
On the nativist right, an older causal theory is back. It is legitimate to ask whether war with Iran served American interests. The transition occurs when America’s own government disappears from the explanation and Israel becomes the hidden author of American policy. Saying Israel advocated war is analysis. Saying Israel controls American decisions is conspiracy. The boundary is American agency.
“Jews control the banks” becomes “Zionists control campaign financing.” “Jews control the media” becomes “Israel controls the narrative.” “Jews control governments” becomes “Israel maneuvered America into war.” The nouns have changed. The causal theory has not.
This leaves Jews caught between two political markets. The progressive left says Jewish acceptance becomes easier when Zionism is removed from the package. The nativist right says support for Israel becomes easier when Israel asks nothing of America and Jews stop objecting to the stories told about their influence. One side wants the Jew without Jewish sovereignty. The other wants the ally without the invoice. Neither produces a durable good Jew.
The trade
Conjoint analysis does more than reveal what people prefer. It tells us what they are willing to trade away.
American Jews are being offered continued acceptance through a series of apparently inexpensive trades. Criticize Netanyahu. Many of us already do. Oppose particular Israeli policies. Perfectly legitimate. Accept that Zionism is racism. Treat Jewish political organization as foreign influence. Remain silent when the conspiracy comes from your own coalition. Each concession can look reasonable when purchased separately. Only at the end do you discover that you are no longer buying the same product.
The old joke says an antisemite is someone who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary. I began this exercise expecting to calculate the necessary amount. There is no such number.
The left has a Jew who can purchase temporary acceptance by testifying against Zionism. The right has a Jew who can purchase temporary acceptance by asking nothing of America and ignoring the conspiracies gathering around him. Every warranty is conditional.
We are not choosing between the good Jew and the bad Jew. We are watching different American coalitions decide what kind of bad Jew they need.
Robert S. Miller is president of Kiron North America, part of an international gaming technology business operating in 65 countries. He holds a Ph.D. in operations research and an M.S. in experimental statistics. He created the Israel Security Index, a weekly prediction-market composite, and has written for Tablet and The Times of Israel.