Much of Jonathan Rosenhead’s letter (29 December) was devoted to Israel and Palestine. He makes the tendentious claim that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is discredited. A small minority has disputed the definition, but there is no evidence that it is discredited. He then makes the charge that UK governments have been unclear about the difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism.

Most Jews in the UK would challenge the idea that there is much difference between the two. In recent years, anti-Zionism has manifested itself as opposition to the existence of a specifically Jewish state. In a 2015 survey, The Attitudes of British Jews to Israel, “90% of British Jews support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state”, the implication being that current anti-Zionism will be experienced as antisemitism. While it is clear that there was a very large immigration into Israel/Palestine during the 20th century, there has been a continuous history of Jewish settlement there for 3,000 years, so the demand for a Jewish state was not inconsistent with demands for their own state by ethnic groups in other countries.

This does not, however, continue over as unmitigated support for the Israeli government. In the same survey, 68% of British Jews “feel a sense of despair every time Israel approves further expansion of settlements on the West Bank”. This is consistent again with the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which states that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.

Legitimate criticism of the Israeli government is therefore perfectly acceptable in British universities. Anti-Zionist opposition to the existence of Israel is not.

Joseph Pearlman

London

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters