The difference between the two voices is the term used ‘Jew’ or ‘Zionist’. Regarding the Islamic voice, most observers consider that it’s an anti-Semitic voice, but the Islamists themselves have their own religious argument which says that the Jews were a chosen people, but the curse of God wanted their dispersion across the world except in Palestine, and their attempt to return is a pure sin. We must protect the Holy Land "Al Quds" of the Jewish impurity. The Shariaa law, reserves a pure distinction between Jew and Muslim. It reserves for the Jew a special status called Dhemmi.

For the pan-Arab movement voice, it is subject to variation between observers. There are those who believe that it's an anti-Semitic voice: They start from the fact that the ancestors of André Azoulay are not invaders, but ingenious people since 30 centuries, some even call them Amazighs converted to Judaism 30 centuries ago, arguing  by the foundation of Amazigh kingdom with Jewish confession  and rolled by the Queen called Tihiyya, Adding to this: Azoulay's name itself is an Amazigh/Berber name which means  “the one with the blue eyes”, he himself was born in Essaouira, his parents buried in Essaouira, he has a Moroccan nationality, he is with Palestinian side in the Arab-Israeli  conflict. And despite all this, his taxation as Zionist, is a pure Anti-Semitism.

In the other side, other observers believe that it's an anti-sioniste voice: justifying Azoulay Zionism with the fact that he is a supporter of peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict, he also is for normalization with Israel or with Zionist state as called by the pan-Arabs. Because for them -as recently published by the Moroccan Association of Human Rights AMDH in a statement released- "Anyone who has or wants to try or think about normalization with the Zionist state on the tourism, cultural, intellectual or economic field is a Zionist"

But opponents believe the opposite: intrigued by the fact that  Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain and Mauritania – which have Israeli flags floating over their capitals - are not considered by the same reasoning, as Zionists states, and therefore boycotted them and their films, their conferences and congresses, it is a work of pure and clear political agenda. If these countries were not Arabs, they would be taxed by Zionism! And this is pure anti-Semitism. They add another argument, why the human rights defenders supported the Sahrawi activist Aminatou Haidhar, in the conflict opposing her to the Moroccan Authorities even though she has rejected the Moroccan nationality and she denied what the Moroccans call "the sacred national pillars"? in another hand they protested against Andre Azoulay, and asked him even openly and publicly to get out of Morocco, although he has never denied any of "sacred national Pillars". Even his love to his country ‘Morocco’ is obvious to everyone. The only difference between the two persons is, -these observers noticed- that Aminatou haider is Arab  and Azoulay is Jewish. Is not this a pure anti-Semitism?.
In the same context, Andre Azoulay, declared to a newspaper that: he is considered in Morocco as a Zionist and a Palestinian in Israel, it means someone of nowhere; this shows clearly the effect this can have on his life, His fundamental right has been violated: They asked him to leave the country as if he is the Dhemmi? Is he really Dhemmi? . Isn’t that a pure anti-Semitism?
All these slogans spread silently: the Moroccan authorities’ silence, Moroccan Jews silence and the intelligentsias’ silence… until a Moroccan Jew brought to justice an association of human rights. Thing, according to observers, should be done by Azoulay, because he is the one who is the most concerned before any other Moroccan Jew.
Far from all these small details, putting things in the right context and generally outside of any ideology, in your opinion: is these voices, Moroccan Pan-Arabs and Islamists, are anti-Semitic? Anti-Zionists? or neither one nor the other? or are they free voices? Express yourself ..