I would suggest that Shah was not making a genuine proposal as to what should happen when she wrote that. Essentially she was trying to make a point about the hypocrisy of those who expect people in the Middle East to accept something which they would never accept for themself.

It was indeed a badly expressed way of making that point. Steve is correct however in pointing out that she was making no specifically antisemitic point. The fact that the predominant number of Israelis are Jewish is contingent - what was significant was that they are a population of settlers parachuted into a region, to displace and replace the existing population. Ironically of course, that is precisely how the United States came into exisrence.

However in the light of history, it was a very insensitive way of putting it, and she rightly apologised. The fact that she did not challenge the claim that it was antisemitic, while denying that she had any antisemitic intentions, merely indicated that she was willing to accept a definition of antisemitism which is very much open to challenge. Which in fact is what this thread is primarily about.