What a very odd article!
The writer is suggesting that the word 'anti-semitism' should be re-purposed to mean the same as 'bigotry'. I understand his point that all forms of bigotry are harmful, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to get rid of the more precise word. We already have the more general word. 
Anti-semitism means "hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people". Unfortunately, that reality will still exist even if you get rid if the word for it: you just lose the ability to talk about it, measure it, track how it changes over time, and put in specific measures to address it. If you only measure bigotry in general, you may respond to increased attacks on Jewish schools (an increase in measured bigotry) by introducing a policy to include same sex characters in school plays. This may reduce bigotry overall (if there is also homophobia as well as anti-semitism), but won't have any effect on the increased anti-semitism. Precision matters.
Then there's his weird strawman argument about the journalist Abu Akleh, as if anyone was saying that Jewish people were the victims in her death .
You can have multiple wrongs happening at the same time! If you had a culture where teachers hit boy students - but not girls for the same misbehaviour - that would be sexism and violence against children, and should certainly be stopped. If all the teachers did that - but only the black one was sacked for it - then that would be racism which should also be addressed. The teacher should be re-instated, and all teachers told not to hit students. Or else all the teachers sacked. But not only the black one.
And then there's his uninformed view on the Nakba. Yes 30% of the population were Jewish, but the Partition plan only assigned the Jewish state 20% of the British Palestinian mandate, not 50% . I think he's conveniently forgetting Transjordan, which the Partitian proposal said should be completely emptied of Jews (East of the river Jordan).
He says "most Palestinias never attacked Jews". I'm pretty sure most Jews also didn't attack Palestinian Arabs.
In 1947, the leadership of the Palestinian-Arabs initiated the war of the roads, to try to destroy the spread-out Palestinian-Jewish communities. The Jewish leadership then encouraged informal militias to become more formalised and attack areas which were attacking them. My understanding is that the directive on the Jewish side was only to attack in retaliation to prior attacks, in order to not disrail the Partition process. But it was a civil war, and these things are messy.
And you certainly have to go back further than even 1947 to understand the start of the civil war. Jewish people bought farms and moved the previous tenants out. Angry former-tenants created civil unrest. But these weren't a persecuted minority, they were a disaffected majority. We're so used to seeing Israel/Palestinians theough the lens of oppressor/oppressed that we forget that it was really very different in the 40s! The Hebron massacre of 1929 - sparked by false rumours about Jews - was arguably the point where civil war became inevitable (and that civil conflict is the reason the British recommended Partition rather than a single state).
The Arab nation armies did only come later - in 1948 - but to say that it was to protect the Palestinian Arabs really is a stretch!