Sorry, I don't see the offense in framing a discussion around one instance of something. Don't get me wrong, if someone claims to be fighting for a general cause and then repeatedly talks about one instance, that's wrong. But I really don't see a problem with someone offering a story about one instance. At no point did the OP imply that there was no discrimination against other groups.

Claiming that the Holocaust (I'm guessing you don't like that word either) was the worst catastrophe in all of history is a different matter. Now you're dealing with a statement of fact that should at least in theory be either 'right' or 'wrong'. In practice though, I don't think it makes any sense to split hairs around wether it was the 'worst' catastrophe in human history. Who cares, it was pretty damn bad. It's hard to see why you would be offended - there's plenty of defensible views of the word 'catastrophe' that could make the holocaust the 'worst' catastrophe, and if by some other reasonable view of 'catastrophe' the holocaust only comes in at number 7, why would you view it as offensive if someone disagreed?

Same goes for your insistence on the right way to call 'prejudice against jews', where you also manage to find offense. Any mainstream dictionary will define anti semitism as something around discrimination or prejudice against Jews, which would make it's use in this discussion 100% legitimate.

Perhaps you could enlighten us - what exactly is the problem with Jews talking about ways in which they were hurt as a group in the past?