When she, an Israeli asset, said Israeli policy put American Jews in danger of blowback, it was a nothingburger. When Piker says the same thing, the Israeli assets in the Democratic party turn the outrage up to 11, to bury El-Sayed.

But that's not the same thing at all. Stevens said that Netanyahu made American Jews less safe; Piker said that American Jews would make themselves less safe if they kept up their support for Israel. Do you not see the difference there? The former is a statement that Netanyahu is engaged in terrible policy that had negative effects on American Jews (an odd thing for an Israeli "asset" to say), but the latter is more akin to blaming Jews for the violent acts that others will visit on them for having their beliefs. Very reminiscent of his (since retracted) statement about 9/11 - a real "blame the victim for the attack" approach.

Do you really not understand why Jews can be, and genuinely are, upset by Piker's comments - or why they're different from the very legitimate criticism that gets levied against Netanyahu?