[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.

[ILMostro7]

Yet they all tend to be grouped into that category when a phrase like "anti-semitic" is used. If jews criticize Israel, they're labelled as self-hating. Whitewashing in the name of holocaust victims is doing a disservice, to say the least, IMHO. Religious zealots on one side are treated with white gloves, while any dissent or uproar (unrelated to Religion, even) on the other side is seen as justification to take any action in the name of security.

When the descendants of victims from places like the Warsaw Ghetto justify and defend their operations of the modern-day ghetto in Gaza...

[noduerme]

When you compare Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto, you're doing violence to history. The Warsaw Ghetto did not have elections to vote in a terrorist group. It was not offered its own nation-state. It didn't receive billions in foreign aid to build bombs. It did not have a charter, nor was the annihilation of German civilians in its charter. Moreover, it existed as a way to round people up in order to exterminate them. That is not the "purpose" of Gaza. Gaza should by now be a successful part of a successful Palestinian state, and the reason it is not has a lot to do with Hamas.

In any case, where you have actual genocide - e.g. the systematic murder of a Muslim minority in China - no one is calling for boycotts or comparing it to the Holocaust, or even labeling it a genocide. Tesla opens a dealership in Xinjiang and the same exact people who want to boycott Israel go out and buy Teslas. Teslas they can charge up at the casinos on Indian reservations between LA and Phoenix. Chatting on their iPhones made by slave labor in China.

But then, where you have nothing remotely similar to systematic murder, as in the Palestinian territories, people call it "genocide" and call for a boycott. Ain't that funny?

[ILMostro7]

You just mentioned a number of the double standards that exist netween the US and countries with immoral policies. There were uprisings in the ghettos. Granted, they didn't have enough time to form a democratically elected government. I am pointing out the irony of using anything similar as the Germans against a people who live in the most densely-populated, walled off land on earth...to say the least. Prolonging that with impunity and pride will certainly not make things better for anyone. You are casting aspersions against what I said, with no reason.

[noduerme]

Yes. There was an uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto. You know what happened? The Germans leveled the ghetto and killed everyone. Because they wanted them dead. There was an uprising in Xinjiang. Know what happened? China put millions of people into forced labor camps. Because they want them dead.

There was an uprising in Gaza. Guess what happened. Israel withdrew its own settlers unilaterally at gunpoint and handed over the territory, leaving greenhouses which were then leveled by Hamas.

Israel is also an extremely small, densely populated place surrounded by people who want to kill it.

[noduerme]

To respond more directly, I didn't mention any double standards between the US and countries with immoral policies. I'm not even sure what that means; it's a nonsensical statement, as double standards don't exist "between" countries, they only exist in terms of criticism. Specifically, they only exist where criticism is biased.

To your second point, you say the Warsaw Ghetto wasn't able to hold elections to form a democratic government because they "didn't have enough time"? It had absolutely nothing to do with not having enough time. The Ghetto was a transit point for people to be gassed, nothing more. Imagine if they were encouraged to form a democratically elected government and hold elections, like Gaza, and if those elections were backed and monitored by international human rights organizations, like Gaza's elections were. And imagine if what they voted in was a theocratic dictatorship who proudly proclaimed that their winning would signal the final democratic election, ever.

Finally, you might have misunderstood what I said. The Germans in my scenario are the Israelis - that is what the BDS people think. They think the Israelis are Germans, and the Palestinians are Jews. The only irony in the situation is that the people who think this are Germans and/or other Europeans who did not give a flying fuck about the Holocaust when it was happening, and now suddenly are gripped by conscience when one is not happening - insofar as they can still be antisemitic in polite company.

[denton-scratch]

> The Warsaw Ghetto did not have elections to vote in a terrorist group.

HAMAS was not a "terrorist group" when they were duly elected in the Gaza Strip.

> It was not offered its own nation-state.

Neither Gaza nor the West Bank has been offered it's own nation-state.

[noduerme]

Hamas was declared a terrorist organization by the EU in 2001, five years before they won elections in Gaza.

Palestine declared statehood in 1988 when Jordan renounced the West Bank. In 1993, the Oslo Accords would have granted statehood to Gaza and the West Bank. This was rejected by the PA leadership under Arafat because it would have foreclosed the possibility of a return to land within Israel proper, and they didn't have the political strength to make that palatable when most of their power rested on raising the street in anger. The fact remains that a free Palestinian state was offered to the PA, which would have included all of Gaza and most of the West Bank.

[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.

[worik]

> Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations

Really? That requires mind reading.

Do you mean "...depending on their effects"?

[slg]

We do this with plenty of crimes. Murdering your spouse to collect their life insurance policy is punished harsher than murdering your spouse after you come home to find them having an affair. Motivations and intent matter.

[worik]

It is the same crime. Motivation does not count to guilt.

Intent does, but intent is different from motivation. Do I need to explain that?

[slg]

That was one example of the law no acting based purely on result. If you want specifically an example of motivation what about killing in self defense? That is a motivation and not an intent. It can also be what decides guilt or innocence.

[guelo]

American defamation laws are neutered compared to other western countries because of the 1st amendment.