Blackmailed by the term 'Anti-Semitist'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments regarding the "removal" of Israel have been condemned in the West. Easy to see why.
The creation of Israel was a result of Western colonialism and was, in fact, an act of aggressive colonization itself.
Europeans had been colonizing the world for centuries. Is anyone demanding their ancestral land back? Surely that would make them something akin to an anti-semitist -like a Nazi.
The Zionists reclaimed land, of course, two millenia after the Romans drove them out of it. But they were doing so because there was genocide in Germany. It is not like there has been genocide anywhere else, before or since, is it?
We can't say Israel is the home of the Jews. They were one of a number of Semitic peoples who arrived there from Mesapotamia (modern day Iraq). But they were far from the first. They arrived via stints in Egyptian captivity, desert wandering and conquering of Canaanites, according to their own mythology, if no one else's.
The Jews did not originate in Israel. But Christianity did. Zionists therefore reclaimed Israel in the 20th century. They violated the terms laid down by the colonial masters of the day.They smuggled in arms with the intention of taking the region by force rather than co-existing with the natives. So what is the problem here? Objecting to this would be something akin to anti-Semitism, like Nazism, yes?
The Jews did co-exist with the natives of that region over two millenia ago. The Arabs were generally far more tolerant toward the Jews than ever the European Christians were, in fact. But by the mid-20th century Israel had the means by which to run the native Arabs out of town.They also had the means by which to blow up the King David Hotel in 1946; an act of terrorism which killed 91 people.
Why would anyone object to a nation founded on terrorism, unless they were anti-Semitist - like aNazi?David Ben-Gurion, initially involved in the King David Hotel strike planning, became Israel's first Prime Minister. Another future Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, was implicated in the 1952 Lavon scandal. This involved bombing British interests in Egypt to frame the Egyptians and turn the British against them.
Israel attacked Egypt a few years later. Britain and France, with colonial interests at heart, joined the fray. Does anyone object to unprovoked invasions? Israel's chief allies are still at it. And the United Nations is still condemning them, not that it makes any difference.
Thirty years ago the United Nations adjudged Zionism racist. Why would anyone but an anti-Semitist object to racism? Why would anyone but an anti-Semitist oppose the shooting of stone-throwing boys and dropping of bombs into crowded streets? Israel has the right to defend the land it has wrenched off the Palestinians, regardless how many thousands must die in the process. Do the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves? Not with acts of terrorism, anyway.
That Palestinians were driven from their homes and turned into refugees enmasse does not necessarily mean Israel has created its own Frankenstein here.
Zionism is Europe's Frankenstein.
Long-serving Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat was the problem, apparently. That was according to the previous Israeli prime minister, whose dearest wish was granted when Arafat suddenly turned green and died. So the ensuing shellings of Lebanese and Palestinian targets should not have been taken too seriously. Ariel Sharon said there would be peace once his old nemisis was out of the way. And Mr Sharon is a man who knew how to get ahead.
In 1953, as Palestinian farmers attempted to regain their land, Israeli troops gunned them down, slaughtering 50 villagers in Qibya. Major Sharon was implicated.
In 1956 a costly and unnecessary battle occured in Sinai's Mitla Pass during the Suez War. Commander Sharon was implicated by his own superiors of provoking the bloodshed.
In I967 Israel attacked Egypt (and most of its other neighbours) killing tens of thousands in their initial raids. Major General Sharon was a hero of the conquests.
In 1982 Christian militia turned on Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, slaughtering thousands. Defence Minister Sharon was implicated after his troops stood by and watched.
In 2000 Palestinian demonstrators were gunned down during a controversial visit to their region by Leader of the Likud party, Sharon.
In 2001 Palestinian homes and infrastructure were destroyed, television and radio masts shot down, and the international airport ripped up, at the bequest of Prime Minister Sharon. This last was accompanied by house-to-house raids, the abduction and blindfolding of men enmasse, the shooting dead of protestors, and a Jewish rampage through the streets of Palestine culminating in the torching of an ancient mosque.
Is it not hard to see, therefore, where Mahmoud is coming from?A rabbi, presiding over the funeral of an American Jew who has shot 29 Muslims, may say that the fingernail of a Jew is worth more than the lives of a thousand Arabs. An ultra-Zionist Israeli prime minister may compare Palestinians to salmon by saying they will forget where their homeland is after a couple of generations. And the West may even condemn Turkey's efforts to gag writer Orhan Pamuk (whose books are freely available to the public in Turkey incidentally).
But anyone who criticises Israel is, by the West's method of evaluation, akin to an anti-Semitist - like a Nazi. There are limits to freedom of speech.

end