Edit: And Holsety, either you are being incoherent (which would be totally out of character) or my command of the english language is not sufficient to gauge where you are going with your post. The latter seems to be the most likely. So, pray, enlighten me.
Perhaps I should start by saying that my personal view of the state of Israel is as follows. The founding of the state of Israel by Israeli colonists was immoral, essentially a repurposing of Palestinian land for Israeli use. I don't have statistics, but I am under the impression - this impression was prior to my first manic episode and may be untrustworthy, but I do not know where to look to find data on land distribution (Jewish settlers VS Arabs VS other groups should there have been any, Bedouins are hard to deal with since they don't have land but require unoccupied land, essentially to be nomadic is to view oneself as owning unowned land, and it is untenable for nomadism to exist in an oppressive state that seeks to repurpose unoccupied land for development) to reconfirm my impression with statistics - that the majority of Israeli land was taken during the British Mandate period, not transferred through economic exchange. It is certainly the case that I would like to reeducate myself so that I had a firmer grasp of the facts, but wikipedia articles don't seem to contain the relevant information. Anyway, the fact that the Palestinians fled their land to allow other Middle Eastern countries to invade in an attempt to return the land to the Palestinians during does not revoke their right to the land of Israel and their ancestral home. Thus the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza have a right to the land that the Israelis are living on. However, the Israelis also have a right to it because they have established themselves there for long enough and have invested their time and energy into construction on the land. The solution to the problem is not going to be through political, manufactured solutions but either a destruction of the identity or existence of one of the two warring factions or a reconciliation which brings about relative justice in material terms (as things are, my understanding of the situation is that Palestinians who work in Israel much of the dirty work of keeping things running, there is a fairly strong class distinction between Jews and Arabs. Even aquifers centered primarily under Palestinian occupied territories are being repurposed by Israel, the majority of the resources in the area are being sucked up by an usurping people - though, because they have invested their lives their, they have a partial right to the usurpation. The Jews defend their right with the Torah, saying they have a right to the land, but I say that the Palestinians have a right to the land too).
Anyway, with that mostly irrelevant (asides from the last part, the rest was just lead-up to why I feel the way I do) portion of the post out of the way, what I was trying to say is that Israelis are not just Jews, they are also Israelis. If Palestinians were given equal rights as Israelis, then Israel would cease to be a Jewish state because Palestinians who are followers of Islaam would outnumber the jews. Putting labels as much aside as possible in favor of the ideas they represent, it is IMO somewhat difficult to hold a position of "liking" another human being if you really understand what it is they need to do to maintain their identity and disapprove of what they need to do in order to maintain that identity. That is why I consider myself to despise Israel - although I do care what happens to Israelis, and I am sad when they die, I consider that their maintaining their identity as Jews who have restored the Holy Land is too expensive an ideological commodity. Frankly, I would feel less guilty living in an Arab state with a Jewish community than I would feel living in a Jewish state with an Arab community. Thankfully, I live in the United States of America, which for all its flaws at least on the face of things attempts religious equality.
What I am trying to say is that while "antisemitism" may not be the right word for it, there is some argument that the existence of Israel as a Jewish state depends upon the mistreatment of Palestinians, because there are more of them, and that opposing that mistreatment arguably opposes the very identity of the people who live in Israel. It is only if Jews as a people are highly fractured regarding whether the state of Israel should exist that one can refrain from using the blanket term "antisemite" to describe those who oppose the arguably necessary (for the Israelis as people who believe a Jewish state should be maintained, perhaps no one thing is truly necessary) second-class treatment of Palestinians, and if the Israeli Jews can accurately describe Jews against the existence of the state of Israel as "Self Hating Jews" (and I both hate and love myself, so I can be described as a self hating jew) and argue that it is in the Jewish people's best interest to maintain a Jewish state, then it can be called antisemitic to oppose policies which perpetuate the Jewish state.
My reality is that the interests of the Jewish state cannot be solidified without knowledge of the future, which is why I believe that being antisemitic can only be an emotional impulse, not a rational disapproval. But I can see how an Israeli Jew who had a strong command of the facts could call others antisemitic with fairly high amounts of accuracy for suggesting things that went against the interests of Israel to maintain its existence as a Jewish state.
