I have long argued that we are wasting far too much time trying to explain Zionism to people who have already decided what it means, defined it in the most hostile terms possible, and have no interest in allowing Jews to define their own national identity. Jews should not have to endlessly explain, defend or rebrand a special word for the same right to collective self-determination that every other people is permitted to claim without apology. That does not mean social media or public advocacy is unimportant. Much of it is necessary. But too much of the conversation has become consumed by manufactured online disputes, misrepresentations of what other Jews supposedly believe, self-promotional campaigns and highly produced performances about “fighting antisemitism.” Meanwhile, far too many legacy organizations appear more concerned with maintaining the approval of institutional stakeholders than with naming discriminatory antizionism clearly, even when that caution leaves the communities they represent increasingly exposed. Some people, however, are doing the serious but still largely unseen work of protecting Jewish civil rights. Professor Rona Kaufman is one of them. This amicus brief, filed with the Supreme Court of the United States by the Center for Jewish Legal Studies in support of the Jewish students suing MIT, points toward a far more serious and productive way forward. The Center was co-founded by Professors Rona Kaufman and Andrea J. Martin. What is particularly important is that the brief does not begin by endlessly attempting to defend or redefine Zionism. It treats discriminatory antizionism as a phenomenon that can be identified and legally examined in its own right. It carefully distinguishes criticism of Israeli policy, advocacy for Palestinian rights and Jewish theological opposition to political Zionism from ideological traditions that deny Jewish collective self-determination, portray the Jewish collective as uniquely illegitimate or demonic, target Jews because of their connection to that collective, or justify discrimination and exclusion against Jews under the guise of antizionism. That is the way forward. The central legal question raised by the brief is not whether every person who calls themselves an “anti-Zionist” is an antisemite. It is whether particular words and conduct, understood in their historical and factual context, can operate as discrimination against Jews. The brief argues that courts must examine the language used, the people targeted, the surrounding conduct and the historical traditions from which that conduct emerges. Courts cannot recognize a form of discrimination they have never been equipped to understand. They also cannot and should not assess exclusion, intimidation and hostile rhetoric in an artificial vacuum while simply accepting the perpetrators’ preferred description of their own behaviour. This is what serious civil-rights advocacy looks like: producing the scholarship, language and arguments necessary to make the harm experienced by Jews institutionally legible. The work of Professor Rona Kaufman and the Center for Jewish Legal Studies is tremendous evidence that new leadership is emerging. While others remain trapped in debates over terminology, optics and personal influence, they are building the intellectual and jurisprudential foundation required to defend Jewish civil rights. Every lawyer, academic and Jewish community leader should read this brief. The case is StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I am sharing the Supreme Court docket below. This is how legal understanding changes. This is how precedent begins to move. This is the way forward. supremecourt.gov/docket/dock…