The West Bank enters the book not through a detailed account of its geography or events, but as the setting of an occupation whose political meaning is fiercely contested. Its brief appearance concentrates a larger argument: opposing interpretations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can expose different dangers, and the book rejects treating either one as the whole truth.

The Occupation in Political Debate

The passage identifies the West Bank occupation as, from one standpoint, the latest instance of European colonialism. In this reading, appeals to the Holocaust are politically instrumentalized to legitimize colonial expansion, and the same ethical standards should apply to Israelis as to others. This is presented as one pole of a debate, not as a neutral description of the occupation or a history of the territory.

A Contested Political Frame

The opposing pole reads European advocacy of peace in the Middle East and solidarity with Palestinians as an extension of antisemitism by other means. From this perspective, criticism of Israeli politics can conceal hostility toward Jews. The West Bank therefore appears within a dispute over how political claims are framed: whether opposition to occupation is understood as a critique of colonial power or dismissed as a disguise for antisemitism.

The Book’s Interpretive Stakes

The book refuses to resolve the opposition by choosing a safe middle ground. It argues instead that both dangers must be recognized: antisemitism can appear within contemporary left-wing discourse, while criticism of Zionist politics remains necessary. The West Bank is a focal point for this double demand, invoked in a discussion that insists neither the reality of antisemitism nor the political consequences of occupation should be erased.