I think the requirement for “have to be stated it as a political position” caveat is rooted in malice which has historically skewed the discussion in favor of controlling the narrative in the interest of the agenda at hand, in this case is blind support for Israel.

I remember having to use the same set of qualifiers back in the day during the “War on Terror”, when arguing that mass bombing campaigns would only lead to more extremism. I’d have to state that I didn’t “support terrorism” and the idea was to have an objective discussion around the policies in question.

It’s a tact to suppress valid criticism and garner support.

It was apparent then and it’s apparent now. We cannot have open discussions in the interest of actual progress when folks are implicated into a myopic tribal view of the situation for having an opinion that goes against the common narrative.