That's a pretty vague description. It could describe both the State of Israel and the African-American civil rights movement, sure, but it could also describe a hospital, or, like, some bread.
You're definitely not doing any semantic arguing here.

(That's a joke. See, it's funny because you are.)
The analogy that was drawn assumes that Israel represents the same thing to Jews in a predominantly gentile society as civil rights organisations represent to black people in a predominantly white society, and that seems to me both a pretty deep misapprehension of either how non-Israel Jews relate to the State of Israel, how black people relate to civil rights organisations, or both.
I don't think it represents the same thing precisely, but it definitely matters to most Jews and could potentially matter a whole lot more. Based on the treatment of Jews across a very long period of time, over a very wide area, you don't see any reason why having a Jewish-controlled refuge for Jews might be important?
Hard to see why. You don't get to declare that you've won the argument just because you have the loudest voice in the room.
I'm saying that someone's support or rejection of a political movement ought to be judged differently based upon the real-world circumstances, and you think it's 'hard to see why?'