This seems like conflating purpose and reason, or current function.

Israel acts independently and has it's own interests, which sometimes conflict with US interests, but often align. The US continues to prop Israel up because it needs access to the region.

Saying that the British and later Americans used Jews in the same way they used Scotch Irish or other marginalized people to colonize land they wanted to control by proxy is just a statement about history. It would be anti-semetic to suggest that Israel is somehow able to manipulate the US in to funding and arming it, rather than the relationship going primarily the opposite direction... As the US does with it's many other proxies all over the world. It would be anti-semetic to suggest that Israel is somehow unique in being funded and supported by the US without being part of US global strategy. If we can accept that Israel is just another US proxy, then we ask, "given the local geopolitics, would Israel exist without US support?"

The history of persecution that allowed the British and Americans to exploit Jews to colonize Palestine isn't what my post was about. I can understand the confusion. I assume it was in good faith.