In his article "Zero Dark Zero" Roger Cohen does this very thing in an attempt to position liberal Zionism between two extremes. He establishes an 'equivalency' in the minds of readers between Israel's radical extremist religious-nationalist camp and advocates for Palestinian human rights. He writes:
For any liberal Zionist — and I am one — convinced of the need for the two-state outcome envisaged in the United Nations resolution of 1947 establishing the modern state of Israel, both the religious-nationalist Israeli push to keep all the land and the Palestinian refusal to abandon the untenable, unacceptable “right of return” (there is no such right in history, just ask the Jews) are causes for deep despondency.
With Cohen's argument in mind here are two videos I'd like you to view. First, religious-nationalist Israelis:
Make sure to hit the 'cc' icon to access the subtitles
Next, a Palestinian advocate for the right of return:
Does that look equivalent to you? Why does Roger Cohen do that?
Zionism, whether religious or secular, revisionist or liberal, based on biblical prophecy or not, is an ethno-nationalist movement. In contrast, the principles of the BDS movement, including the right of return, are based on equal civic and human rights. This is the challenge for liberal Zionists. To position themselves as moderate they seek to create an equivalence between extremists where none exists. And, evidently, are not averse to using a fallacy to make their arguments when all else fails.