I specifically, explicitly said that destroying actual politically meaningful things with the Star of David on it is a different story, and made no reference to politics being constrained by religious doctrine. Even if it was explicitly allowed in Judaism to treat whatever symbol like garbage, I would have the same position, because the point is not that there is blasphemy involved but the nature of what is being communicated as a political message. I furthermore hope that you can understand that if I said you can blow up a tank with the Star on it (obviously), then I wouldn't object to deposing a theocrat.

We're clearly in agreement then. I only want an emoji to burn the Israeli flag. Not the Star of David which happens to be on the flag.

Surely you agree that "A curse upon the Jews" is a bad thing to say, something we should disallow, but that doesn't mean the Houthi pirates haven't been engaging in heroic actions and deserve support.

Again, in agreement. But there is nuance. Take the slogan "there is only one solution, Intifada revolution" that is a little more ambiguous. If I was to believe what you said: "communication is about intention and reception" then we should be getting rid of this slogan, no? It's not being received well. No one knows what an Intifada is in the west and thinks it means something like a Jihad. It's a pain in the neck correcting people, but I do it anyway. Because it's what the Palestinians want to say.

Seriously, how pathetic do you have to be to resort to the idea of "canceling"?

It's annoying how often it comes up, but you have to admit it's staying power throughout the decades in the forms of "PC" and such has to mean something. ADL and Canary mission wouldn't be given loads of resources to root out resistance if it didn't do anything. That's why I and Norman Finklestein (who also had issues with the "there is only one solution, Intifada revolution" until corrected by a nearby protester, IIRC) talk about cancelling.

You see, this backing off of strong rhetorical positions of support to move to weaker ones is exactly how we get weaker figureheads in the Left, ones that don't fully back a Palestinian state until its too late like Bernie (or i guess he's a downright Zio now I honestly haven't been following him), or ones that are forced to say in interviews "Israel has a right to exist, but here's a catch" like Mamdani. Soft Language is the first domino that leads to a lack of commitment to strong positions that the general public supports.