A.K.,
we do know the historical background. We also know that it is constantly misrepresented by anti-semites. And we also know that historical background is largely a matter of opinion.
But current atrocities are not. As I said before I base my opinion on Israel's legitimacy on the current scenario. I don't care about the whereabouts of people that have died decades ago. And regardless of how many Israeli politicians demand that Israel should be the size of the whole territory it was meant to be, and even regardless of what the UN claim, I still believe that killing children is wrong and so is any cause that makes people use them as primary targets.
Zergimmi,
there is a difference between anti-Israel and anti-semitism. It is possible for a Jew to be against Israel (or some of its policies), it is even possible for a Jew to be an anti-semite. However, that doesn't mean that anti-semites can excuse their rascism by stating they are merely anti-Israel.
If you claim that Israel is wrong because it overreacts, you might be anti-Israel. But if you claim that Israel has no right to exist or lie about its history or insist that when Israel does X it is much worse as if an Arab country does X, you are an anti-semite.
What if Israel enacted all the laws against Arabs that Saudi-Arabia has against Jews? Wouldn't that be a fair solution? Shouldn't Israel's prime minister announce that his government found that the Sauds are a wise family and that their decisions are pure wisdom and can be applied everywhere, to any people? Should Israel treat Palestinians the way Saudi-Arabia treated Saudi-Arabian Jews? Should Israel deport all Palestinians and never allow the back (and confiscate their property)? Wouldn't that be a fair solution? I mean, Saudi-Arabia did that (to the Jews) and nobody is complaining. How come Arabs are allowed to do that and Jews are not?
Solitair,
I have lived in Dublin a few years ago. I have been in Northern Ireland often, including Belfast (which Dubliners go to for shopping). The situation is not comparable. Not at all. Not even slightly. For the most part catholics and protestants live there in peace and they don't hate each other. If we could get the Palestinians to behave like them, the problem would be solved.
Who has the right to live on that land? Well, that's simple: everybody does. We all have the right to live there or anywhere else. The only things that could stop us from exercising the right is government interference or some other use of force or the fact that other people are already exercising their right to live there.
40 million Irish could move to Ireland if they wanted to. But the problem does not arise because they don't want to. Nobody stops them from doing it except the fact that Ireland is already full and people have thus no special interest to move there (individually they do, but no large groups). But the same is not true for 2 or 3 million Jews. Israel has room for them. Israel even had room for those Jews that were expelled from other Arab nations.
But if the United Kingdom decided that Ireland, the ancient homeland of the Irish catholics, should be one of their colonies again? What if the UK told protestants in Ireland (and Northern Ireland) to leave temporarily while the UK attack the republic and invade it, and then, presumably, give it to protestants to live in? What if Ireland won that war, managed to even invade Northern Ireland and didn't allow the protestants to come back? Would that make you anti-Ireland or anti-British?
Who's fault would it be? The attacker's or the defender's? Who would have the privilege of living in Ireland? The catholics who were attacked or the protestants who left?
What if the UK expelled all catholics living in Great Britain and they moved to Ireland? Would this mean that
a) the UK should compensate them?
or

Ireland should also allow the protestants to come back?
Why would all the problem-solving rest on Ireland's shoulder? Why don't we exspect the UK to do anything about it?
The situation in reality is, of course, different. But that's not because the Irish catholics are more civilized than the Israeli Jews. It's simply because the British are a lot more civilized than the Arabs. That's btw why the UK don't attack their neighbours every ten years; even if they happen to live on land that was once British. Incidentally, the British also don't care if more Irish move to Ireland or even Northern Ireland. And they do not constantly send killers to Ireland to make life misrably there.
So what would you do in that alternative reality? Would you be anti-Ireland but not anti-catholic? Or would you say that the UK should have refrained from attacking Ireland and was right to lose the territory they risked while doing so? Would you demand that the protestants who left Ireland when Britain called for them to should have a "right to return", even though Ireland had to accomodate the catholics expelled from Britain, or would you decide that they are the UK's problem?
As I see it you have three choices now:
1. You can defend the position that both attacked countries, Ireland and Israel were wrong, deserve to be defeated (but aren't), and must allow the protestants/Arabs who left when the UK/other Arab countries called them back.
2. You can claim that Ireland and Israel were right.
3. Or you can claim that in the alternative reality Ireland was right, but in the real world Israel is not. But that would make you an anti-semite.
Have fun.