I don't like the fact that my country sells planes to the Saudis which they use to bomb Yemeni civilians, and I frequently say so. That is a criticism of government policy, not of the character or predilections of the British people. I don't like the fact that the Israeli secret service is involved in training foreign police forces in violent methods of restraint, and I frequently say so. That is a criticism of Israeli government policy, not of the character or predilections of the Jewish people (as Israel characterises itself as a Jewish state, I regard it as appropriate to put it that way). If I were to say that the Israeli government behaviour that I don't like is typical of Jews, that would be antisemitic. If I single out the behaviour of Israel in a discussion about foreign or domestic policy, I don't have to mention everybody else's bad behaviour in order to avoid being called antisemitic, though you'd rightfully think that I was being obsessive, and suspect my motives, if I NEVER mentioned anyone else. We single out the behaviour of different nations' governments all the time, whether it's us selling jets to the Saudis or American foreign policy or the outrages of the Chinese regime, and we don't feel obliged to demonstrate every time that everyone else is just as bad. I'm not going to feel that I can't mention Israel without walking on eggshells when I don't do that for every other country's regime. Unfortunately, that's the mindset we are expected to adopt by pro-Israel hawks (can I say that?) And that ain't right.

If the Jewish people in Israel and beyond are anything like us Brits, large numbers won't know or give a damn what their secret services, etc., get up to. That's why I'm careful to criticise the Israeli regime, not "the Jews" or the "Israelis" or even "Israel." We don't need to walk on eggshells, but words are important.