@Ossinev and @HarryLaw Regarding terminology — ZIO, WZIO or whatever … I think the point that @HarryLaw is trying to make is that it can be a fine line from how a criticism of Israel becoming something might “cross the line” and become a position that is anti-Semitic (i.e. “anti-jewish”).
Why is there a need for the term “Zio” when one could just as easily say supporter of Israel? If it is an abbreviation of Zionist, then the term isn’t even accurate since there are different kinds of Zionists who have a vast array of different views, all of which are problematic in my view, but each of which needs to be separately understood and argued.
For example, Peter Beinart maintains he is a Zionist, although he is strongly critical of Israel and doesn’t feel it is valid to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. On the other hand, he is not of the view that Israel is an apartheid state … in my assessment, he is still trying to work things out, but there is a basis for having a conversation.
With Zionists such as Avigdor Lieberman, Ayelet Shaked or Naftali Bennett, there is no basis for such a conversation.
Some Zionists believe in a “two-state solution”, others (like Lieberman, Shaked and Bennett) believe in a “Greater Israel including Judea and Samaria” … still other Zionists (regarded at the “far-left” in the Israeli spectrum) believe in a single, democratic state that recognises equal rights for all, irrespective of religion, gender, ethnic or racial background, etc.
And then there are jewish groups, such as Jewish Voices for Peace, which are “guided by a vision of justice, equality and freedom for all people. “We unequivocally oppose Zionism because it is counter to those ideals.” https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/zionism/ However, JVP also acknowledges that this is a difficult discussion for many jews.
In my view, rather than getting caught up in fine distinctions, one should simply be clear (to themselves and to others) what they are directing their anger towards.
If one hates Israel because it is a country “run by jews” then that is clearly anti-Semitic in my view, just like hating a country because “run by Muslims” would be clearly Islamophobic, or hating a country because it is “run by blacks” would be clearly racist.
However, if one is angry at the State of Israel because the government privileges the rights of jews about non-jews, or that the state came about as a result of dispossessing the indigenous people living their of their homes and livelihoods, or that there is ample evidence that its military have committed war crimes, including the torture, illegal interrogation and detention of children, then I do not possibly see how either of these statements can be regarded anti-Semitic. By the same token, being angry at the government of Saudi Arabia because of its restrictive laws regarding women could hardly be regarded as Islamophobic. And being critical of documented cases of graft by government Minisiters in Zimbabwe are not overtly racist.
By this typology, and as I allude to in my article, the Jerusalem Post as well as Y-Net, the Jewish Chronicle and others are patently fomenting anti-Semitism, constantly twisting statements that are clearly aimed as well-substantiated criticisms of Israel and considering them – without any substantiation other than a loose reference to the IHRA Definition – as being anti-Semitic.