I'm really disturbed about this argument that criticizing the state of Israel can become anti-semitic, because you're applying a double standard--so if human rights abuses are going on elsewhere and you aren't talking about them, you must be anti-semitic (Irwin Cotler uses this argument routinely). THis is also in the Interparliamentary Coalition to combat anti-semitism (which is disingenious, because it then says, criticism of Israel is fine as long as you aren't applying a double standard...but you're left wondering where's the line between legitimate criticism and anti-semitism because double standard).
The argument makes little sense, because we will focus on certain social justice issues and will not be involved so much in other social justice issues. We pick and choose our struggles, and logically we're going to focus on certain issues and not other issues.
By Cotler's logic, criticizing racial segregation in the United States in the 1960s is 'anti-American', because you are focusing attention about what's happening in the U.S., and ignoring racial segregation in South Africa!
Coltler tends to back up this claim about anti-semtism by double-standard, through anecdotes. But I wonder is there anyway of empirically testing this claim that there is a double standard around criticizing Israel (i.e. refusing to criticize other countries' human rights abuses, therefore selectivity=anti-semitism).