Poor Sheldon Adelson. Even fellow billionaire Haim Saban has had enough. So toxic has the self-described pro-Israel conservative become that Saban, a major supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, can no longer bring himself to deposit his millions with Adelson, even when the goal is to combat the latest mortal threat to Israel’s existence (or, rather, unchallenged legitimacy): the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Saban had reportedly pledged support for Adelson’s $50 million effort to oppose the growing BDS movement against the Israeli occupation at U.S. universities. The movement’s focus on academic and cultural activities directly challenges Israel’s portrayal of itself as a modern, liberal democracy. It has thus touched a raw nerve across academia and U.S. politics and has led many university administrations to adopt strong stands against it as a way of demonstrating their support for academic freedom.

Saban won’t be donning a keffiyeh anytime soon, but it’s clear that the increasingly politically conservative mainstream American Jewish leadership bears closer resemblance to the current Republican presidential field than to the broad base of American Jewry, which remain among the most strongly liberal demographic groups in the country. American Jewish college students in particular tend to be progressive, which is why college campuses have become ground zero in the battle over Israel’s image.

For decades, the one issue that has been the exception to the broadly progressive streak within American Judaism has been Israel. The Jewish state has received unchallenged support by most Jews despite its decades-long occupation of the West Bank and the pursuit of policies toward Palestinians that, were they practiced by any other country, would be overwhelmingly opposed by American Jews.

This support has rested on three conditions. First, American Jews have seen Israel as under a constant and mortal threat by the surrounding Arab and Muslim world. The 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars had to be successfully depicted as defensive and necessary to prevent the destruction of the Jewish state.

In 1948 the recent memory of the Holocaust naturally gave such threats particular salience. But the passing of the Holocaust generation and the ever-widening body of research challenging the argument that Israel’s wars have always with wars of no choice (in Hebrew, ein breira) have gradually weakened the claim that Israel has always been the victim of others’ aggression.

Second, the occupation has been portrayed and understood as primarily about security. Most American Jews would not support an occupation based on conquest and displacement, while one based on security leaves open the possibility for a land-for-peace compromise once Israel’s legitimate security needs are met.

But it is increasingly clear that the occupation has never been about security — if it were, Israel could legally have maintained a military occupation without moving a single settler into the occupied territories. Now, with the majority of Israeli political elites openly declaring their desire to annex most of the West Bank and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state under any circumstances, the security argument for maintaining the occupation no longer holds much water.

Third, Palestinians have been portrayed as irrational, hate-filled others who cannot be reasoned with. As long as Palestinian anger and violence leave no partner for peace, then there is no reason to examine Israel’s policies too closely. Palestinian terrorism, whether by the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1960s and 1970s or Hamas in the decades since, has legitimized this discourse.