I give you the 'technically' - Leauki's point was that there was no reason to accept that they needed to be 'questioned' except that the IDF is Jewish. At least I think so. I'm sure he'll speak for himself.
Yes, that's pretty much it.
The evidence is that the UN and others do not generally have huge meetings about these things when the army in question isn't Jewish.
As I said, nobody in the mainstream accuses President Obama of genocide just because American attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan hit many civilians while (legitimately) aiming for terrorists. Note that the Americans, and I don't hold that against them, do NOT send soldiers into villages containing terrorists. The Americans use missiles. It's _only_ the IDF who regularly risk their own lives by doing the job manually. Heck, when the IDF use bulldozers to get into a building instead of bombing it they are accused of destroying innocent people's homes. It's really ridiculous.
So while I'd agree that the original accusations were probably anti-semitic in nature, the majority of them today are not. It's got more to do with people not turning a critical eye to what they're told, and subscribing to blatant groupthink.
But that's what anti-Semitism is. Very little of it (today) is "active" anti-Semitism (i.e. anti-Semitism practices by those who also made up the stories).
Most anti-Semites are "passive" anti-Semites. They are the ones the white supremacists and terror supporters are trying to convince: "The Jews must have done something, otherwise all those people wouldn't accuse them all the time. It's not about Jews, it's about Israel.".
Ultimately, that's worse for Israel then mere anti-semitism. Not only are they up against an army of bigots, but also against the inertia of half a century of well meaning individuals buying into a smear campaign combined with the overwhelming force of human stupidity... and frankly, trying to deflect human stupidity is probably an unwinnable battle.
True.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I think the best way is to turn the "arguments" around:
1. Land for peace: So how much land should Israel get from the Arab countries?
2. Occupation of Islamic holy cities: So when should Saudi-Arabia withdraw from Mecca and Medina (which they annexed in 1926)?
3. "Settlements": What will we tell Arabs who buy houses in Israel? Is it illegal now because they are Arabs?
4. Refugees: When will the UN start supporting the Jewish refugees, and will they get as much as the Arab refugees got over the last 60 years? When will Israel receive these funds?
I think these are four important questions that stand in the way of peace.
