Sorry, but these points that you have made are super old hasbara. On your first point: selective intensity of attention does not prove antisemitism as the driver. The Israel-Palestine conflict is uniquely sustained by Western (especially U.S. and European) military, diplomatic, and financial support for one side, unlike most other conflicts (which are usually proxy wars or ethnic conflicts fuelled from multiple sides by arms dealers). Israel receives billions in annual U.S. aid, advanced weapons, and diplomatic cover that enable ongoing occupation, settlement expansion, blockade, and military operations in territories recognised under international law as occupied. It is also the case that Israel is highly adept at international diplomacy and lobbying - to the extent that we see support for Israel almost wall to wall in establishment circles and media. I should also point out that comparable scale or intensity of focus has and does occur with other conflicts (see Iraq, Vietnam, and Apartheid South Africa). On your second point, I again do not disagree that historical anti-Jewish violence is real and indefensible. Both the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1941 Farhud were atrocities driven by religious/nationalist hatred, local politics, and (in the Farhud's case) wartime conditions and Nazi-influenced propaganda. Antisemitism long predates modern Zionism and the State of Israel. Acknowledging this does not require accepting that contemporary Palestinian resistance or solidarity is merely the continuation of that ancient hatred. Palestinians are in conflict with Israel and Israelis because of the specific conditions of the conflict - not because they are antisemitic. Framing all Palestinian armed groups or solidarity protests as “cheering on terror” because some have antisemitic elements or because Jewish history includes pogroms flattens distinct phenomena and is frankly lazy. On your third point, defining Zionism solely as “the right of the Jewish people to a homeland of its own, as every people has” is a selective, ahistorical abstraction. In practice, Zionism was a late-19th/early-20th-century political movement that sought a Jewish majority state in Palestine despite an existing non-Jewish majority population. Palestinians resist and oppose Zionism because of what has been done to them. I am an anti-Zionist on that basis and also because I firmly believe that we can and should tackle antisemitism rather than give in to it and succumb to the idea that the only 'cure' is for Jews to live in Israel. Furthermore, Zionism's dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948, the prevention of their return, and the maintenance of a system that privileges Jewish national rights over equal citizenship for all inhabitants of the land is the reality. Prayer for return to Zion is a religious tradition; converting it into a modern ethno-national political project that requires demographic engineering and military dominance is a political choice, not an inevitable or universal right. Israel’s non-Jewish citizens (primarily Palestinian citizens of Israel) enjoy formal citizenship but face documented structural discrimination in land, housing, family reunification, and political rights under laws that define the state as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Opposing Zionism is not the same as opposing the existence or safety of Jews, any more than opposing other ethno-national projects equates to hatred of the relevant ethnic group. Most Jews worldwide are not Israeli citizens, and significant Jewish currents (historical and contemporary) have been anti-Zionist or non-Zionist on ethical, religious, or political grounds. Equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism collapses a political disagreement into a racial or religious one, which left-wing anti-Zionists reject as both inaccurate and a barrier to addressing actual antisemitism. I utterly reject your last remark and that isn't remotely what I have done nor is it the position of any anti-Zionist that I know.