Many Republicans, including Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley are confused about how to approach the conflict in the Middle East. For example, DeSantis claimed that the United States should not take in any Palestinian refugees because they are all "antisemitic" and Haley said "there is no difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism...In order to combat antisemitism, we have to define it...". Of course, in order to understand it we have to define it. The problem is these words are purposely not well defined. Antisemitism, along with racism, are Leftist terminology which only exist to silence the Right. Unfortunately, Republicans continue to use Leftist language.
I agree with Ron DeSantis that we should not take in any Palestinian refugees, but for different reasons. What DeSantis does not do, and for political reasons is scared to do, is frame his anti-refugee policy in a way that puts America first. Instead, he blindly adopts intersectionality as his reason. The reason we should not take in Palestinian refugees is not because of their alleged 'antisemitism', but because they are foreigners from a vastly different culture, tradition, and religion. In other words, it doesn't benefit the American people in any way. Secondly, it does not benefit the United States to import the problems of the Middle East into our home. Lastly, we should not take in these refugees, again, not because of their alleged antisemitism, but because of their hatred of America and Western civilization.
Nikki Halley's comment is more complex. She is correct that we have to define these terms in order to understand them. However, the words are so entrenched in Leftism, identity politics, and intersectionality, that conservatives should simply drop the usage completely. I think we can define these terms with a clear distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism although the two will often overlap. Anti-Zionism can easily become antisemitism in the sense that opposition to the current nation state of Israel becomes hatred of Jews everywhere. Secondly, to single out a nation in such a way that it is the only group of people not afforded a nation state, is borderline antisemitism. And this gets to the fundamental reason the Left oppose Israel.
The Left equates Zionism with European / American colonialism. This is evident every Christopher Columbus day, where Leftist protesters slander the Italian explorer and all European settlers with him. In other words, the American nation is singled out as a people unworthy of a homeland. Thus the reason the universites, BLM, and the Left oppose Israel, is not because of their antisemitism, but because of their anti-Western, anti-European, and anti-American world view. This world view is an amalgamation of liberalism, cultural Marxism, post modernism, and critical race theory. They have an unhealthy obsession with colonialism, imperialism, and the idea of the perpetual oppressor / oppressed paradigm. All you have to do is listen to them speak. They will point out that it was British colonialism that created the modern state of Israel. BLM called the act of terror against innocent Jews an act of decolonization. The examples are numerous. Now I also agree with removing the tax status from these universities, but the reasons go far beyond any alleged antisemitism.
The reason is because the universites do not teach virtue, but vice. In sum, our moral frame work should avoid intersectionality. Our first instinct should not be to look at the object of an act and think is it antisemitic, but rather, is it sinful? Our moral frame work should be separate from the Left. It should be centered around the natural law, the capital, cardinal, and theological virtues, and above all, the Decalogue.