One of the new methods to discredit Jews and further antiSemitism, is to attack the identification of antiSemitism.
Here, people are more than willing to jump on an idea that those who raise the issue of bigotry are somehow manipulated by "the Russians"
Indeed, the Russians are just as likely to be manipulating and pushing this idea that those who raise antiSemtism are the manipulators.
As for the article itself, the author takes some very serious "alt fact" positions of his own.
(1) He falsely claims that "anti-Zionism" is just about "holding Israel accountable" for actions in the West Bank and Gaza -- when in fact "anti-Zionism" seeks to eradicate the Jewish State entirely. Zionism is consistent with both those who want to change Israel's policies in the territories and those who don't. By pretending Zionism is somehow inconsistent with peaceful resolution with the Arabs, the author buys into and perpetuates one of the most fundamentally flawed canards spread by the Israel haters. It started by the Russians (which makes it ironic) when they started the canard that Zionism is somehow "racism" because it focus don the protection of Jews in danger.
That's the problematic and false "conflation" about Zionism. Not that antiZionism is intertwined with antiSemitism.
(4) With respect to Lamont Hill - he says that Jews support a single democratic state in which Muslims can impose whatever law or type of society they want as a replacement for the Jewish State of Israel. This is so bizarre. Israel exists as a refuge state for oppressed Jews. I'm certain he's correct that a few very privileged Jews who wouldn't have to live in such a state might hold such views, but the idea that it is commonly held among Jews with a brain is preposterous.
Hill was properly chastised for pushing such ideas. It sounds great to say - "we just want a democracy in which everyone can live and let live" -- but common sense says otherwise.
(a) exactly where is such a state in which the majority population is Arab Muslim??? Look around. Such states are fully apartheid, murder gay people, crush free speech, crush freedom of religion (death for apostates for example), etc etc.
(b) More to the point -- the very people he is talking about gaining control over Israel, the Palestinians, SAY THEMSELVES that they will create an Islamic state and re-subjugate any Jews who survive and remain. They don't even give lip service to the type of western-value society Lamont Hill claims he is advocating for.
(3) He says falsely that Omar was complained of because of her statements about AIPAC. To the contrary, it was her statement that no one could support Israel on the merits, and that any Congress person supporting Israel MUST be doing so for the $$$. That is very very different from "criticizing AIPAC." She was criticizing any politician that supported Israel and claiming they were bribed. it is this idea of deligitimizing the important reasons for which people support Israel that she was called out for. Those like this author repackage what she said in order to defend her, but we heard her the first time.
(4) Finally, he says nothing wrong about Talib spreading lies about Palestinians providing a "refuge" for Jews during the Holocaust. The leadership at the times was not only ideologically against any Jewish immigration, they actively killed immigrating Jews. And - of course - the very second the Jews were left with their tiny bit of land and few weapons - a massive combined armies attacked in a war in which the Arabs themselves said they were seeking to commit genocide.
So -- there is no "there" there. Each example the author provides requires acceptance of "alt facts" to give any basis for his argument.