By angelizing Israel, its apologists oblige themselves to prove not only that its actions are justified (already a daunting task), but also that the country's behavior is superior to that of "any other country in its position." This is due to a number of extraordinary claims the Zionists make: most notably, that Israel holds the moral high ground not only in relation to its Muslim neighbors, but also as compared to other developed democracies where its leftwing critics live.
A key ingredient of the angelization is the claim that the Israeli Defense Forces are the most moral army in the world, which is regularly repeated, most recently in relation to the Gaza op.
A case in point is the ineffable Alan Dershowitz. A writer notable not for the depth of his ideas, but for the influence (itself telling) he exerts on the lower echelons of the Hasbara troupe, a.k.a. Zionism's useful idiots. In his book The Case for Israel Dershowitz describes Israel's doctrine of "purity of arms," which "requires that soldiers put their own lives at stake in order to avoid harming non-combatants" (p. 145). He gives an example:
Recall that when Israel sought to protect itself against Beirut-based terrorism in 1982, it sent a team of soldiers --led by then Major General Ehud Barak, dressed as a woman-- to target the terrorists themselves in a building then being used as their base, instead of bombing the building from the air, which would have resulted in many more casualties. This is typical of the Israeli "retail," rather than "wholesale," approach to targetting terrorism (p. 151).
This is a puzzling example. I thought dressing like women was a very wrong thing for soldiers to do, and the only reason why so many Palestinian women died in Israeli attacks. Now it turns out it's commendable, if done by Jewish soldiers.
More importantly, the incident Dershowitz refers to is not illustrative that Israel does not perform wholesale murder; it only means that in some cases pinpoint operations may be more effective. It did not take place during the 1982 war, as Dershowitz suggests, but as part of Operation Springtime of Youth, carried out in 1973 to wipe out three PLO members alleged to have played a part in the Munich massacre. It was not a time of war and a discreet operation by a handful of men had a greater chance of success.
The doctrine of "purity of arms" must be tested in war conditions. And in the recent war on Gaza, I can't think of a single instance of an Israeli soldier's life being risked so that civilians won't die. In fact, only about 3 Israeli soldiers died from enemy fire, against at least 400 Palestinian women and children. This does definitely look a lot more like wholesale than retail, yet I haven't seen any comment on this imbalance from Israel's angelizers explaining how it can be reconciled with any notion of purity.
So why insist on the "most moral" thing? Why bring up a nonexistent spirit of self-sacrifice on the Israeli soldiers' part? Such preposterous claims only invite scrutiny -- and exposure when proved false.
But of course, the Zionists respond to this by playing the "double standards" card. "We say that we're morally superior, but if you try to check out if we're morally superior, then you're judging us by standards you don't expect any comparable country to meet." Why, of course, but that's because you claimed to meet higher standards in the first place. What you're doing is something only bad-behaved children do, and the name for it is wanting to have it both ways.