One is anti-Jewish, one is anti-Israeli policy

The argument

Supporters of this position argue that the two terms are not rival descriptions of a single attitude but names for two different things, and that the distinction is definitional rather than a matter of degree. Anti-Semitism, on this account, denotes explicit prejudice and bigotry against the Jewish populace — against a people, their identity and their members. Anti-Zionism denotes a position taken on a political question about a state. Because the two have different objects, proponents hold, treating them as interchangeable is a category error: it is like comparing apples and oranges, and the comparison cannot be rescued by arguing about how serious either is. The step that does the work is the refusal to let the state stand in for the people. The Israeli state, on this view, is not an automatic stand-in for all Jews across the globe, nor can it be treated as such; a government's conduct is chosen by that government, whereas Jewish identity is not a policy anyone adopts. It follows that criticising Israeli policy is not tantamount to criticising Jewish people, and can no more be called anti-Semitism than criticising Iranian expansionism can be called explicitly racist. Supporters take that parallel to show that objecting to what a state does is ordinarily treated as political argument, and that the exception made in this one case goes unexplained. From this the position draws its asymmetric conclusion. If anti-Zionism is a political difference of opinion, it belongs to the ordinary business of disagreement about states and their actions, and is acceptable in the way other political positions are acceptable — one may think it mistaken and still think it permissible. If anti-Semitism is prejudice against a populace, it is not a position in that sense at all, and it is not acceptable. Proponents conclude that the two must be judged separately, and that collapsing them misdescribes both.

Context

By definition, Zionism is the political dogma that insists on the creation of a Jewish state on land that belongs to Palestine. This operates as a political policy. Anti-Zionism is the opposition to this political policy. Anti-Semitism, by contrast, is prejudice against Jews.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Anti-Zionism is simply anti-Semitism shrouded in publicly acceptable language. It is not socially acceptable to make slurs against Jewish people. However, criticising the state of Israel is far more palatable. As a result, often, anti-Zionism is simply anti-Semitist spouting their bile under the guise of criticising Israel. This is best illustrated by the language anti-Zionists use. Ilhan Omar, Malia Bouatta, among other anti-Zionists, are comfortable repeating anti-Semitic tropes and stereotypes in the name of anti-Zionism. Ilhan Omar played on anti-Semitic tropes in suggesting Jewish money controlled US politics. Malia Bouatta did the same when she suggested Jews controlled the international media. Both are anti-Semitic tropes and stereotypes. The fact they were repeated under the guise of anti-Zionism demonstrates the extent that anti-Zionists are just the anti-Semites of the modern era.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] They refer to the same concept: a prejudice against Jews. Anti-Zionism just expresses anti-Semitism in politically acceptable language.