The problem with your article is that it shuts down any debate about the state of Israel, limiting any argument to the bounds that you've set. Yet you've not demonstrated that those bounds coincide with the distinction between what is antisemitic and what isn't.

According to international law, no nation state has a statutary right to exist.

Some Jews either have no interest in the state of Israel or are against Jews having a state. How can they be antisemitic if they are Jews? Its possible to be in favour of Jews having their own state without being convinced that its an undeniable fact.

I also have to ask why I should accept Natan Sharansky's test of antisemitism when he's a Zionist? This isn't to deligitimize him except for his almost certain bias.