That is, how would you define fake opposition, so that they are easily dismissed, and discredit genuine opposition by naive association?

Here are my thoughts:

(A) Firstly, as much as possible, avoid focussing on the factual details of current events that cast Israel in a bad light: events like murdering Palestinians or invading their country, having strong influence in the US to obtain foreign aid and flout international laws, etc...

(B) Re-frame opposition to Israel's more unsavoury policies as blind antisemitic hatred. The strawman should promote the psychotic racist viewpoint that all Jews are inherently evil and deserving of horrible punishment. Any reasonable moral person would naturally be horrified by such a viewpoint, and no societal leader could ever adopt it.

(C) The holocaust is Israel's greatest source of sympathy and the most potent example of the horrors of antisemitic hatred, while Nazis are widely accepted as being evil by definition. The best-possible strawman should therefore be Nazi, and mention the holocaust at every opportunity. Why would they continually obsess over the holocaust when it happened 72 years ago? Perhaps to dispute its historical accuracy and frame it as a hoax perpetrated by Jews - while simultaneously saying that Jews should in fact be punished and reviled en-masse. The absurdity of such an obsession is ideal for the strawman's lack of credibility, and still focuses the wider public's limited attention and outrage on the desired concepts: holocaust, antisemitism, racist, Nazi... further obscuring the current events of (A).

What do you think?