I hear quite often from critics that
“…and if you say anything bad about Israel they call you an antisemite making it impossible to criticize the state!”
…and dozens of variations on that theme.
This article from the J-post points out how one British member of Parliament in a secretly filmed meeting, shows how the two ideas are typically conflated. But before anyone points out that this is an ‘isolated incident’ it may be worth trying this more practical experiment yourself.
Find someone at a BDS event or even someone you know that claims to be critical of Israel and not the people and ask a few simple questions such as:
1: You believe that Israel is deserving of special sanctions and punitive measures because of human rights violations X, Y, and Z. Do you also advocate the same measures be imposed on countries A, B, C, D, and E that not only are guilty of the same things but are indisputably so whereas the charges against Israel are vague and abstract and leveled by those sworn to her destruction, but say they were true. Why have I not heard you demand the same measures on anywhere else guilty of the same offense?
2. If Israel has no right to exist based on your line of thinking, then why do you not also demand that Pakistan be returned to Indian sovereignty? (Pretty much every reason given for the destruction of the state of Israel applies equally or even to a greater degree to the state of Pakistan. Every reason but one that is)
3. If you object to the security fence Israel built which has dramatically reduced terrorist attacks on its civilian population, have you also been strident and visible when it comes to:
3a. The new Saudi fence?
3b. The US – Mexico border fence?
3d. The Great Wall of China built to keep out the Mongols? Don’t the Mongols have every right to invade China?
It doesn’t take long to see there is usually only one reason left why it is Israel which is singled out for this special hatred, criticism, street theater, and demonization that doesn’t apply better to many other states, and that is granting that the accusations are true, which is very seldom the case. (See the Al Dura affair)
And I wonder, what might that one difference be?