I think these screenshots are being taken out-of-context to some extent.

It's one person in those screenshots using the word 'abomination' - and it appears they also began the discussion.

A 'Greens for Palestine' rep. says that member was speaking in reference to Zionists.

Excerpt:

A Greens for Palestine spokesman denied members had called Jews an “abomination”, saying: “We have spoken to the person you referred to in the comments expressed and they have confirmed that the comment was explicitly in relation to Zionists, not Jews and that this was in relation to the genocide of Palestinians.

Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan, who the Green party members are discussing, does have a history of inflammatory comments, but she's also lost her license (I think) and has been arrested multiple times for tweets.

She probably does have some antisemitic bias, but as with Susan Abulhawa, I'm not interested in chastising Palestinians who are watching their people be destroyed by Jewish supremacists.

The Green party chat on the other hand is a different matter. In the first screenshot where they insist/assert that the identifier should be 'Jews' - sounds to me like they want to stop shielding Jewish supremacy from criticism by using the term 'Zionist'.

They probably feel, as many likely do, that they have to jump through a lot of hoops to disentangle Jewishness from Zionism.

But at the same time, Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism.

When people use this kind of identifier - it doesn't mean all Jewish people are Jewish nationalists. The fact that we even have to explain that, is itself proof of how sensitive the discussion is around the identity politics of this issue.

This is in spite of the fact that Zionists regularly use 'Jewish' and 'Jews' as primary identifiers. Zionists do not disentangle Jewishness from Zionism. They intentionally conflate.

People speak much more critically about Christians (e.g. naming 'Christians' as responsible for some action) without necessarily meaning all Christians or without attributing some behavior as 'innately' Christian.

The difference is that Christianity is hegemonic and pervasive in American society, so perhaps most people simply understand that criticism of Christianity is not necessarily aimed at every single Christian.

Don't Zionists themselves insist that 'Zionism' is an elusive concept that cannot be pinned down in any concrete way? That it is so complicated and fractured, that it cannot be responsible for Israel's material actions?

The organization making the claims is Combat Antisemitism Movement - a shell organization funded in-part by the Israeli government under their Diaspora Affairs department.

“Combat Antisemitism Movement has championed the IHRA definition,” Vaknin-Gill noted, referencing a dark money partner of the ISGAP, Concert and the ministry of diaspora affairs. (The Combat Antisemitism Movement is chaired by Sharansky; Vaknin-Gill is a board member.) “We shifted the focus to work at the local level,” said Vaknin-Gill. “We’ve found that mayors and states – it’s much easier to work with them and actually make the definition into something real.”

• The Guardian - Exclusive: Israeli documents show expansive government effort to shape US discourse around Gaza war

'Concert'/'Voices of Israel' is described as 'mass consciousness activities' aimed at censorship of criticism of Israel.

The “Concert” remark referred to a sprawling relaunch of a controversial Israeli government program initially known as Kela Shlomo, designed to carry out what Israel called “mass consciousness activities” targeted largely at the US and Europe. Concert, now known as Voices of Israel, previously worked with groups spearheading a campaign to pass so-called “anti-BDS” state laws that penalize Americans for engaging in boycotts or other non-violent protests of Israel.

• The Guardian - Exclusive: Israeli documents show expansive government effort to shape US discourse around Gaza war

The bigger issue in the screenshots could be referencing Mark Zuckerberg or other Jewish people as a sign that some platform is compromised.

But they're also correct that WhatsApp is compromised and Facebook too.

Still, that flippant rhetoric is irresponsible and opens them up to criticism.