A grave intellectual crisis confronts many American-Jewish supporters of Israel. For more than 40 years, Israel has been able to rely on the support of a majority of Americans. The reason is simple: Americans believe in propping up threatened democracies, and Israel is a threatened democracy.

But a large group of American Jews want the U.S. to support Israel simply because it is a Jewish state. For them, Israel's status as a democracy is an ancillary benefit. They would support Israel even if it weren't democratic, just so long as it is Jewish.

Although few of them would admit it, a large number of American Jews hold these opinions. Until recently, these people, whom I call "the Zealots," were not readily distinguishable from the more moderate supporters of Israel.

Now, as the Israeli oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories erodes Israel's claim to democratic perfection, the Zealots are exposed. It becomes more difficult for them to pretend that love of democracy is fundamental to their support of Israel.

The Zealots face the dilemma of justifying their unconditional advocacy of Israel to the majority of Americans who do not share it. For most American supporters of Israel (myself included), Israel deserves our backing only as long as it preserves the political liberty we embrace.

The intellectual crisis of the Zealots arises when "Israel the Jewish State" is no longer "Israel the Outpost of Democracy." The Zealots face the embarrassing possibility of acknowledging to their allies in the pro-Israel coalition that they really believe in "My Israel, right or wrong."

AT Harvard, I have seen Zealots react to this intellectual crisis in three ways. The first is to suppress the notion that Israel has done anything wrong. Once during my first year, a Palestinian student posted a sign on the entryway bulletin board that showed an Israeli soldier beating an unarmed Palestinian woman with the butt of his rifle.

Within hours, a Jewish student in the entryway had torn the poster down. When the Palestinian confronted her about the incident, the Jewish student responded "I'm sorry, but I just couldn't bear to see it there."

During my sophomore year, I saw a similar reaction in Winthrop House. Another bulletin board, another poster, the same photo. Someone had written across the photograph in huge letters: "BULLSHIT!"

The gesture was more pathetic than vexing. Some poor student wore ideological blinders so thick that he or she dismissed an indisputable photographic record of Israeli brutality as "bullshit."

Those who took Psychology I may recognize this phenomenon as the mental defense mechanism known as "denial." The facts conflict with their beliefs, therefore the facts do not exist.

FOR Zealots who are too intellectually honest to deny that Israel has done anything morally offensive, another mechanism is available--"rationalization." To psychologists, this means attributing inordinate importance to evidence that fits one's own prejudices.

In politics, people who rationalize human rights violations are called apologists. Professor of Law and noted civil libertarian Alan M. Dershowitz, who attacks public nativity scenes as grave threats to the U.S. constitution, has no trouble rationalizing egregious curtailments of civil liberties in Israel.

Year-long detainment without trial? No due process? No big problem for Dershowitz, who defends such tactics as necessary to protect the Jewish state. This intellectual inconsistency doesn't trouble him because he's a Zealot.

Zealots also rationalize Israel's antidemocratic actions by pointing out how much more morally palatable Israel is than the neighboring Arab states. The Crimson can scarcely print an opinion piece criticizing Israel without drawing letters about how much worse the human rights violations are in Jordan.