So a few different things to address. I think there’s some difference between the definition you have posted the link to and the comments you have posted here. In the working definition you shared it specifically states this:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic’”
Which is a really important section, and I think this thread highlights well. Israel itself is a self proclaimed democracy. This means, like all other democratic states (and as mentioned in the above definition of anti-semitism) Israel is open to the same level of criticism as any other state is. Much like how the OP created this thread to discuss a disgusting proposal suggested in Iraq (also a country which is technically - although very loosely!! A democracy, even though there is a large majority of one ethnic religious group) - it would not be Islamophobic for the OP to raise concerns against this proposed change of law, as the OP was directing her concerns and outrage against the (loosely) democratic state of Iraq and its laws, not as targeting a collective Islamic community of that country.
It is not anti-semitic it itself to make an evidence based claim of genocide against the state of Israel, which as I’ve mentioned multiple times previously - would be treated as all other states and investigated under the same criteria as all other states who have had genocide claims brought against them.
The poster above has highlighted other states that have current claims or historic claims against them. Where the political leaders have also had various ICC warrants for their arrests based on the evidence of war crimes.
However you are right to point out that there has been a sharp increase in recorded anti-semitic hate crimes from Oct 2023 - present.
Also a HUGE misconception is that people seem to think there has to be a certain number of individuals slaughtered in order to make something a genocide - when actually “killing of individuals” is only one of the areas covered in the genocide convention. Which would also be massively dystopian if you think about it, if Britain wanted to kill off the Americans but not be accused of genocide they could just sit there and calculate “oh well the population is 300 million, so we can get away with killing 30 million or 10 million and still be under the genocide quota” - For example of course - but that’s a pretty dark way to look at it in my opinion….
In the Sebrenica massacre over 8,000 men and boys were killed, however this accounts for roughly only 0.97% of the Bosniak Muslim population, General Krstic actually tried to appeal his verdict of genocide by saying 8000 was such an insignificant number it can’t be genocide and this was thrown out - because of the other elements of the genocide convention.
I’d also like to highlight this that you have stated “the definition of anti-semitism includes accusing Jews of committing genocide.” - you are absolutely correct - this WOULD be anti-semitic as it would be an example of holding Jewish people collectively responsible for the actions of the STATE of Israel, which as defined by the IHRA is an example of anti-semitism.
However you are the only person to have said this, and use this language, the poster you are replying to has specifically stated they feel the STATE of Israel is committing genocide, and has at no point attributed this action collectively to Jewish people as a whole. And as mentioned in my first paragraph, the IHRA specifically states that criticism against the STATE is not anti-semitic, as long as the level of criticism is the same as any other nation state would receive.