I criticize Israel quite frequently myself. In principle, it is not ipso facto anti-Semitism to criticize Israel. But in practice, anti-Semites these days frequently and thinly disguise their anti-Semitism as “criticism” of Israel, and use your argument as a shield. How should one know the good, constructive criticism from the thinly disguised anti-Semitism? By observing the critics over an extended period, and noting whether the criticism is really judicious and balanced, and whether it’s being directed even at non-Israelis, such as BDS’ insisting that a non-Israeli but Jewish recording star openly disavow “israeli apartheid” before they agree not to disrupt his concerts. Then, of course, there are tactics, and there’s no mistaking jack-booted thuggery.
BTW, unrelated, is Nigel Trantor’s Wallace more accurate than Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, or the other way around, or are they both just over-the-top blather?
Hi, I agree with much of your first point. I think we simply have to take it on a case by case basis.
Tranter, to answer the second point, is much more accurate. He was a fiction writer but also a historian. Braveheart is great entertainment, but utter tosh historically. It gets a few basic things right, but a lot wrong or invented.