We wonder if Danny Gordis feels a bit like Chief Justice John Roberts this week.

Roberts, you may recall, wrote the opinion and cast the deciding vote in the United States Supreme Court decision in late June affirming the constitutionality of most of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). As soon as the opinion was issued, many of his longtime ardent fans were heard sounding allegations that Roberts had taken a position traitorous to the conservative cause.

Gordis is not a judge at all, but rather, a widely respected Jewish voice, with impeccable credentials. He was the founding dean of the first West Coast rabbinical school; current executive and senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Israel, and a winner of the National Jewish Book Award. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg said Gordis was at “the top of his list” of those who most care about the “physical, moral and spiritual health of Israel.”

So how does Gordis come to be chastised à la Roberts? Well, because it came as a big surprise to some that Gordis this week joined about 40 North American Jewish leaders who penned a letter urging Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu not to adopt the findings of the Levy Report about West Bank settlements.

The report is named for former Israeli Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy, who led a three-person panel committee charged by the Israeli cabinet last January with the task of assessing not only the legal status of settlements but whether the Israeli presence in the West Bank comprises an “occupation.”

The report came back pretty much as expected, given the composition of the panel, finding no occupation exists, stating the settlements are legal under international law, and recommending state approval for existing settlements. (The report was not entirely without criticism of the government, however, as it did take the state to task for allowing settlements to occur without proper authorizations and permits.)

The report has been reviewed and critiqued by many on all sides of the settlement issue, and largely the reviews have mirrored the existing sentiments of those who have issued them. We’re not going to dwell on the actual legal arguments here, which are very difficult and, quite frankly, all over the board given the tortured history of the lands of Judea and Samaria.

The signatories of the letter, including Gordis, really weren’t focused on who’s making the most compelling legal arguments either. The authors — including such prominent voices as philanthropist Charles Bronfman; Thomas Dine, former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC); and Richard Pearlstone, former chairman of the Jewish Agency – were far more concerned that adoption of the letter would ignite a diplomatic firestorm.

The letter was not a statement of appeasement at all, as the authors made clear, but of choosing a continued focus on efforts for peace: “We recognize and regret that the Palestinian Authority has abdicated leadership by not returning to the negotiating table. Nonetheless, our great fear is that the Levy Report will not strengthen Israel’s position in this conflict, but rather add fuel to those who seek to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.”

And this is the point Gordis made in explaining his joinder in the letter. In an opinion piece that appeared in Haaretz on Monday, Gordis was clear that the reasons for shelving the Levy report have little to do with international law and almost everything to do with how the world community would perceive it. After explaining that Israel’s goal must be to show the world it’s an able and willing partner for peace (despite the lack of serious effort on the Palestinian side), he went on:

“Observers everywhere would read the adoption of the Levy report as tantamount to annexing the West Bank. It would be read as putting the Palestinians on notice that Israel plans never to evacuate any settlements, and that hopes for a Palestinian state are dead. The damage to Israel — in the international community and even among more Zionists than this government realizes — would be profound.”

Gordis is absolutely right and yet, the backlash he’s received from both commentators and a slew of web posters makes it sound like he’s sold out Israel’s safety and security. Such could not be further from the truth. Those who sent Netanyahu the letter understand something that from time to time eludes the inner circle of Israeli leadership, and that’s the importance of recognizing the impact a government’s words and actions can have in affecting world sentiment. It’s why diplomacy exists, and it’s why diplomacy can sometimes be the most effective vehicle for change, albeit often slowly and incrementally.

Gordis wasn’t wrong to join the other signatories; his participation, particularly as a mainstream, stalwart lover and defender of Israel, should demonstrate how perilous the Levy report tactic would be to the peace process. It’s a shame that he’s being castigated for this, and it will be even more of a shame should the Israeli government adopt the report.