> Jews can be mislead and effectively help boast rhetoric that leads to antisemitism just like everyone.

And I assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is just misled?

The Israelis use the accusation of antisemitism to try to shut up critics. At the same time, Israel allies itself with the biggest antisemites all around the world. In Europe, Israel has been cozying up with all sorts of antisemitic movements, like Hungarian fascists under Orban, the fascistic AfD party in Germany, and the fascistic Front National (and its successor party). In the US, the congresswoman leading the supposed anti-antisemitism campaign, Elise Stefanik, has herself espoused the Great Replacement Theory, which is a classic antisemitic conspiracy theory. The reason why Israel allies itself with antisemites in the West is that antisemites also tend to hate Muslims, so Israel can find common ground with them on that point. In the US, many of the antisemites Israel allies itself with are Christian fundamentalists, who support Israel because it fits into their apocalyptic end-times beliefs.

But then when actual Jewish Americans go and protest against Israel's killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, the same people who ally themselves with Stefanik and company call those Jewish protesters antisemitic.

> The deal for a Palestinian state was part of Oslo and would have allowed pretty much everything the moderates wanted including a part of Jerusalem

You're just wrong here. The major problem with Oslo was that it did not in any way guarantee the creation of a Palestinian state.

The whole implicit promise of Oslo was that the Palestinians would get a sovereign state, but that wasn't explicitly spelled out anywhere in the text, and the Israelis never committed to it.

The Palestinians made massive concessions when they signed the Oslo Accords. They recognized the state of Israel. They conceded everything beyond the Green Line, which constitutes 78% of Palestine. They only asked for the remaining 22%. But after they made those huge, historic concessions, the Israelis began trying to negotiate over everything that was left. We want this settlement. We want that settlement. We want control over most of East Jerusalem. We want to station troops in the Palestinian state. We want to control the eastern borders with Jordan. And on and on. The reason the Israelis made these demands was simple: they're in the dominant position, and nobody is going to force them to concede anything. The US is the one outside party that could actually pressure the Israelis to accept the Palestinians' reasonable offer of peace based on the 1967 lines, but the US is hopelessly pro-Israel.

> The demand of full demilitarization didn't exist back when the offer is made.

The Israelis have always demanded Palestinian demilitarization, as well as the right of the Israeli military to operate inside the future Palestinian state.

> E.g. pro-Palestinian protests help create a message that the Hamas sees as support to it. That means most Palestinians will fall back into the loop of bad leadership that keeps landing them to a worse positions than they were before.

The major problem is just the opposite. The Israelis have felt for the last 20 years that they can do anything to the Palestinians and ignore the Palestinians' demands for basic rights and a state of their own. The Israelis believe there will be no consequences, because the Palestinians are weak. October 7th was a complete aberration, the first time in 20 years that Israelis have suffered at all because of the occupation. Left to their own devices, the Israelis would just continue to expand settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, would never concede to the creation of a Palestinian state, and might even try to expel the Palestinians at some future date. Without outside pressure, there will never be an end to the conflict, except perhaps for a final expulsion of the Palestinians.