Sure, this is a good example of the bad mixing, because it makes the second part of the clause an example of the first part.

It’s like including smiling at children in the definition of pedophilia. Sure pedophiles will do that, but smiling at kids should not be in itself criminalized.

One can at the same time assert the right of the Jewish people to self determination and at the same time recognize the historical racism that brought it into existence:

Many of the fathers of Zionism themselves described it as colonialism, such as Vladimir Jabotinsky who said “Zionism is a colonization adventure”.[12][13][14] Theodore Herzl, in a 1902 letter to Cecil Rhodes, described the Zionist project as “something colonial”. Previously in 1896 he had spoken of “important experiments in colonization” happening in Palestine.[15][16][17] Max Nordau[18] in 1905 said, “Zionism rejects on principle all colonization on a small scale, and the idea of ‘sneaking’ into Palestine”.[19] Major Zionist organizations central to Israel’s foundation held colonial identity in their names or departments, such as Jewish Colonisation Association, the Jewish Colonial Trust, and The Jewish Agency’s colonization department.[20][21]

I mean, the Canadian people have a right to self determination and at the same time Canada is a racist settler colonial project at its inception. Why is Israel uniquely shielded from this kind of criticism? Recognizing the latter is in no way negating the former.