-
Sure.
Imo you can levy plenty of legitimate criticism at Israel's policies. This can be done without being antisemitic.
You can also take a view on how the state was formed and take issue with the concept of a state designed for one "race". That too can be done without being antisemitic.
You can be someone who takes a stand against all sorts of forms of questionable state actions.
However, there comes a point where when someone continues to bang on about Israel and Israelis in a pejorative fashion and to a greater extent than other area that you can't help but query whether there is an underlying prejudice. When they have no connection to the region and start using themes common antisemitism you become increasingly sceptical.
In a lot of cases its down to the hot political topic of the day. It's such a complex basket of issues that it also makes for many great discussion points.
hugo7-
However, there comes a point where when someone continues to bang on about Israel and Israelis in a pejorative fashion and to a greater extent than other area that you can't help but query whether there is an underlying prejudice. When they have no connection to the region and start using themes common antisemitism you become increasingly sceptical.
There's still a bit of vagueness here (what is the point at which someone goes from acceptable critic to being a suspected antisemite? What are the themes common to anti-Semitism? What does common mean in this context? Overlap of a Venn diagram? Or they are the same thing?).
However, to touch on some of the tangible points: There are some clear reasons why Israel may be more of a discussion point, including: historical relationship to Britain/Britain's role in its formation; being a modern democracy, thus being judged differently; being an ally, thus being scrutinized differently; being a key part of a very fragile and important geopolitical situation; etc..
Also, with regards to regional closeness: is it just as strange to you that the anti-apartheid movement received so much traction?
So I don't misunderstand you again, can you explain what your point here is a bit more clearly.