[yonixw]

BDS != The only way to criticize Israel. Lobbing against BDS has a pretty simple cause...

From the same page:

> ... A dozen local and national parliaments have passed symbolic resolutions condemning BDS. Most of these condemnations have alleged that BDS is anti-Semitic.

Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Spain...

[ForgotMyPwOops]

Do you believe boycotting is protected speech?

Do you believe American citizens should be allowed to choose who they boycott?

[denton-scratch]

Boycotting doesn't seem to me to be a form of speech. It's just people choosing where to spend their money. Divestment is similar - people choose what to invest in and what not to invest in.

Campaigning for BDS does seem to be speech, and regrettably institutions seem to have gathered around the view that it's antisemitic speech.

[jonnydubowsky]

anti-BDS regulations, implemented through either legislation or a governor’s order, require businesses contracting with the state to affirm that they are not participating in a boycott of Israel. I don't know of any laws that have attempted to silence individual citizens or direct their ability to protest as individuals (not businesses who also want government contracts).

[eli_gottlieb]

Anti-BDS "laws" are the most idiotic culture-war bullshit the American political system has come up with in the past five years. Secondary boycotts imposed by contract terms were illegal decades ago, and so all these new "laws" are entirely symbolic. It's the worst kind of political red meat, too, because both sides take the bait as if something was actually happening.

[jonnydubowsky]

I agree. I think the argument that there is some infringement on constitutionally protected speech is unfounded. The issues to argue over (and context) is complicated enough as it is.

[yonixw]

I do. But I don't if it's anti-Semitic. And that's the whole question. Seems like many agree it's the latter.

[ForgotMyPwOops]

Who decides what is antisemitic? It seems to me that based on your logic all speech can be prevented assuming some arbiter declares it antisemitic

Boycotting can hardly be considered protected speech if that's all it takes to silence it

[slg]

It depends on the motives and not the actions.

"Boycott Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians." A perfectly acceptable political statement.

"Boycott Israel because they are a bunch of greedy Jews." An obviously anti-Semitic statement.

The problem is that people who believe the latter will often say the former. This causes opponents of the latter to doubt the authenticity of people who say the former. Some people who oppose the former might also accuse people of the latter to discredit them. It becomes can quickly become confusing, but it should be clear that a boycott can clearly have both appropriate and inappropriate motivations.

[pydry]

>Boycott Israel because they are a bunch of greedy Jews.

There's no evidence of any BDS leaders saying this.

On the other hand, there's a bundle of evidence of vehement racism in the highest levels of the Israeli government (calls for "racial purity", collective punishment against arabs, "all arabs grow up to be terrorists", etc).

The fact that apartheid south africa was closely allied with israel, shared a nuclear project and was taken down by a BDS movement is, of course, not a coincidence.

The veneer of anti-racism has seemingly been co-opted to support a white european colonialist project behind an apartheid state that purports to represent a race (again, like apartheid South Africa).

>it should be clear that a boycott can clearly have both appropriate and inappropriate motivations.

It should be clear that evidence-wise, being anti boycott most likely indicates at the very least stark naiveté and perhaps darker, more racist motives.

[amoshi]

Equally, dismissing various criticisms (including boycotts) about the illegal military occupation of Palestine as "anti-semitic" is exactly what groups as JIDF (defunct), ACT.IL and many others are experts at doing.

[slg]

Yes, I specifically pointed that out when I said "Some people who oppose the former might also accuse people of the latter to discredit them." However that neither exonerates the people who are doing it for truly anti-Semitic reasons or proves that those people don't exist.

[ForgotMyPwOops]

Should all opinions based on bad reasons be banned? Should people be compelled to explain their beliefs? Who decides if these opinions are good or illegal?

I don't believe fairly arbitrating expression based on beliefs is feasible, and I do believe it is actively harmful

[slg]

Everyone is free to their own opinions. Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations. We already apply this to other forms of restriction on speech like defamation. Often defamation will require negligence to harm or intent to harm. Someone who is factually incorrect through an honest mistake generally isn't considered to have committed defamation. I don't know why we are okay trying to ascertain the motive behind speech in one instance and not another.

[denton-scratch]

> Who decides what is antisemitic?

There's a trend towards allowing complainants to define what actions are discriminatory, and therefore criminal. It's weird.

[yonixw]

> Who decides what is antisemetic?

The Majority.

> Some arbiter

Nope. The Majority.

> if that's all it takes to silence it

Nope. anti-semetic is kinda big deal. We all should treat it as such and run from it like fire.

[ForgotMyPwOops]

Should all speech be up for vote? Should all opinions that the majority disagree with be banned?

I believe weakening protections such as free speech, which are used by the vulnerable to call attention to their plights, is much more likely to hurt Jewish people than allowing ostensibly antisemitic expression to exist

[worik]

At one point, in my home land (Aotearoa) it was considered perfectly reasonable by the majority to bring teams of white South Africans into the country to play games. They were whit South Africans because they would not allow black South Africans in their teams.

The minority here fought long and hard to stop it, lost the battle (the team came and played their games against our local teams) but now are recognised as heros.

No. It is not the majority who decides what is right and wrong.

[buzzwords]

Nope, if majority believe A, doesn't make A true. It just means majority believe A. Public opinion is very malleable. Hence the existence of marketing.

[spywaregorilla]

More like the plurality of vocal subset.

[emptyfile]

Shocking comment!

[ornel]

Considering an apartheid state synonymous with Judaism is incredibly anti Semitic and promotes antisemitism

[azth]

It's not anti-Semitic, let's be honest with ourselves.

[random314]

There is a difference between 1. Anti Israel 2. Anti Semitic 3. Anti Apartheid

And it cant be decided by the majority.

[colpabar]

Do you think that maybe the lobbying groups funded by israel had something to do with those resolutions being passed?

[yonixw]

I do, but, If it also happened in Germany and France which frequently criticize Israel, seems like it anti-BDS has nothing to do with silencing criticizing Israel... because they haven't stopped since.

[pydry]

Israel is pretty tolerant of meek criticism and regular old antisemitism (e.g. like that employed by their allies Orban and evangelicals/southern baptists).

BDS constitutes much more of an existential threat to the state - they're keenly aware of its pivotal role in taking down apartheid South Africa.

That is, it's the explicit anti-racist grass roots and history of the movement that they object to so vehemently.

This is why they routunely throw out unfounded accusations of antisemitism & throw all the quite considerable lobbying firepower they have in key countries to try and stamp it out.

Support for killing BDS in other countries is as a result, indirectly, an accurate bellwether of which politicians will support/tolerate racism and which politicians can be bought (e.g. Trump - big ally, easily bought, largely pro-racism). There are some in most countries.

[colpabar]

Another way to look at it is that it isn’t about stopping criticism if the criticism has no effect. Serious boycotts can be very effective, but “criticism” from politicians can be meaningless.